LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OP 
CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Bgents 
THE  BAKER  &  TAYLOR  COMPANY 

NEW   YORK 

THE  CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON  AND  EDINBURGH 


r 

SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY 
OF  THE  BIBLE 


By 

Louis  WALLIS 

Author  ofllAn  Examination  of  Society ," 

Formerly  Instructor  in  Economics  and  Sociology  in  the 

Ohio  State  University 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


COPYRIGHT  1912  BY 
Louis  WALLIS 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  April  1912 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago.  111.,  U.S.A. 


TO    MY    WIFE 

uhjlwr 

WHOSE  SYMPATHY  AND  HELP  HAVE  BEEN 
A  CONSTANT  ENCOURAGEMENT 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFATORY ix 

PART  I 
PRELIMINARY  VIEW  OF  THE  BIBLE  PROBLEM 

CHAPTER 

I.  INTRODUCTION 3 

n.  THE  ORIGIN  or  THE  HEBREW  NATION       ....  17 

III.  PLAN  OF  THE  PRESENT  STUDY 25 

PART  II 
ELEMENTS  OF  THE  BIBLE  PROBLEM 

IV.  THE  MAKING  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT      ....  30 
V.  THE  ANCIENT  SEMITIC  PEOPLES 38 

VI.  KINSHIP  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL 40 

VII.  INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL 49 

VIII.  EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL    ...  62 

PART  HI 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  BIBLE  RELIGION 

LX.   GENERAL  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT      .     .  86 

X.  THE  CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS 88 

XI.  PEOPLES  AND  GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD  ...  98 

XII.  SAUL'S  KINGDOM  IN  THE  HILLS 114 

XIII.  COALESCENCE  OF  THE  RACES 120 

XIV.  THE  "INCREASE"  OF  YAHWEH 128 

XV.  THE  GROUPING  OF  THE  GODS 133 

XVI.  THE  INTERACTION  OF  TENDENCIES 140 

XVH.  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  .     .     .  141 

XVIH.  THE  PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE       .     .  147 

XLX.  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM      .     .  172 

XX.  RELIGIOUS  EFFECT  OF  THE  EXILE 203 

XXI.  THE  JEWISH  CHURCH  AND  THE  TORAH       ....  209 

XXII.  JUDAISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY 213 

XXHI.  JUDAISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM    ....  216 

XXTV.  THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  DELIVERANCE 220 

vii 


viii  CONTENTS 

PART  IV 
THE  SPREAD  OF  BIBLE  RELIGION 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXV.  THE  WORK  or  JESUS 229 

XXVI.  CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM  ....  239 

XXVII.  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 242 

XXVIII.  CATHOLICISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM  .     .     .  248 

XXIX.  THE  CONVERSION  or  THE  BARBARIANS      .     .     .     .  252 

XXX.  CATHOLICISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY     ....  255 

XXXI.  JUSTIFICATION  BY  WORKS 258 

PART  V 
THE  BIBLE  AND  ITS  RELIGION  IN  THE  MODERN  WORLD 

XXXII.  PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     .     .     .  264 

XXXIII.  PROTESTANTISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY       .     .     .  279 

XXXIV.  PROTESTANTISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM   .     .  285 
XXXV.  MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  BIBLE-STUDY 289 

XXXVI.  SEPARATION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE 292 

XXXVII.  THE  MODERN  SOCIAL  AWAKENING 294 

APPENDIX  (Note  on  the  History  of  Sociological  Bible-Study)     .     .  299 

INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 303 


PREFATORY 

This  book  is  an  evolutionary  study  of  Christendom. 
Although  it  largely  takes  the  form  of  research  into  ancient 
history,  it  is  in  substance  an  inquiry  into  vital  questions  of 
today.  Owing  to  the  recent  separation  of  Church  and  State, 
there  is  a  tendency  to  take  for  granted  that  religion  deals 
only  with  matters  of  belief  about  things  that  have  no  concern 
for  "practical"  persons,  or  that  it  relates  only  to  private, 
individual  affairs.  Hence  the  need  for  pointing  out  that  the 
vital  religious  ideas  of  Christian  society  took  shape  in  response 
to  a  social  pressure  as  tremendous  and  compelling  as  that 
in  which  we  live  today. 

The  present  social  revival  of  the  church  is  part  of  a  wider 
awakening  which  extends  beyond  the  limits  of  religious 
institutions,  and  which  has  already  put  its  deep  mark  on  the 
age.  Although  every  period  of  history  has  its  own  difficulties, 
there  are  tunes  in  which  the  social  problem  bids  for  attention 
more  acutely  and  insistently  than  at  others;  and  the  present 
seems  to  be  such  a  time.  The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  state, 
as  clearly  and  simply  as  possible,  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to 
the  social  problem.  The  title  Sociological  Study  of  the  Bible 
seems  to  carry  much  of  its  own  explanation  with  it.  But  the 
term  "sociology"  is  a  new  one;  and  some  prefatory  statement 
of  the  general  drift  of  the  treatise  will  therefore  be  of  more  than 
usual  assistance  to  the  reader. 

In  the  first  place,  this  book  takes  the  standpoint  of.  what  is 
called  aEure_science."  It  seeks  to  know  the  historical  facts  of 
the  subject  before  it,  and  to  interpret  these  facts  in  their 
actual,  historical  connections.  Such  being  the  case,  it  is 
necessary  to  enter  upon  our  theme  in  view  of  what  has  already 


x  PREFATORY 

been  accomplished  by  investigators  in  several  departments  of 
research. 

Modern  scientific  study  has  been  slowly  approaching  a  time 
in  which  new  disclosures  of  the  connection  between  religious 
thought  and  secular  experience  are  possible.  The  necessary 
division  of  scientific  research  into  special  departments,  and  the 
consequent  slowness  of  co-operation  among  specialists,  have 
delayed  the  full  appreciation  of  scientific  results  among 
scholars  themselves,  and  have  made  it  practically  impossible 
for  the  intelligent  public  to  share  in  some  of  the  most  fruitful 
achievements  of  modern  scholarship. 

In  no  lines  of  scientific  research  is  this  more  true  than  in  the 
case  of  the  investigations  whose  results  come  together  in  the 
sociological  study  of  the  Bible,  or,  as  we  have  sometimes  called 
it,  biblical  sociology.    Hitherto,  scientific  investigators  of  the 
Bible  have  not  occupied  the  technical  standpoint  of  "pure 
sociology";    nor   have   sociologists   been   familiar   with   the  . 
scientific  approach  to  the  Bible.     It  is,  therefore,  no  matter  for* 
wonder  that  the  public  has  been  excluded  from  territories 
which  are  now  opening  to  the  layman. 

The  view  of  the  Bible  taken  by  our  ancestors  a  few  genera- 
tions ago  differed  greatly  from  the  view  toward  which  the 
professional  scholarship  of  the  modern  world  has  been  moving 
in  the  last  hundred  years  or  so.  During  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
up  to  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century,  it  was  the  universal 
belief  of  the  Christian  church  that  the  Bible  was  the  product 
of  a  mechanical  sort  of  inspiration  which  left  little  or  nothing 
of  essential  importance  for  the  human  writers  of  it  to  do.  In 
the  same  way,  it  was  believed  that  the  rejjgion  ofjliejgible 
came  into  the  world  by  a  sudden  stroke  of  power,  in  a  purely 
miraculous  and  quite  supernatural  manner.  These  views  were 
formed  at  a  time  when  the  prevailing  ideas  about  human 
history,  and  about  the  earth  on  which  we  live,  and  about  the 
universe  at  large,  were  much  different  from  the  ideas  that  now 


PREFATORY  xi 

reign  supreme  in  all  well-informed  circles.  The  progress  of  // 
scientific  research  has  gradually  and  unobtrusively  changed 
the  vast  body  of  belief  that  characterized  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  earth  was  formerly  thought  to  be  a  solid  structure  fixed 
at  the  center  of  the  universe,  with  a  lighting  system,  specially 
designed  for  the  needs  of  our  planet,  consisting  of  sun,  moon, 
and  stars.  But  the  world  in  which  we  live  is  now  revealed  as 
a  floating  speck  in  a  cosmos  that  staggers  the  greatest  intellect. 
The  disclosure  of  this  fact  is  one  of  a  series  of  brilliant 
scientific  discoveries  in  relation  to  such  matters  as  the  geologic 
formation  and  age  of  the  world,  the  vast  length  and  the  evolu- 
tionary character  of  human  history,  man's  place  in  nature,  and 
other  subjects  of  equally  vital  importance. 

The  rising  tide  of  discovery  brought  with  it  a  slowly  mount- 
ing scientific  interest  in  the  Bible  and  its  religion.  TEe~truTh 
forced  itself  into  the  minds  of  careful  investigators  that  the 
Bible  was  compiled  from  other  books  far  more  ancient  than  the 
Scriptures.  It  became  clear  that  the  books  now  standing  first 
in  the  sacred  library  were  among  the  latest  to  be  composed, 
while  other  books,  which  had  been  hitherto  supposed  to  be  of 
late  composition,  were  among  the  earliest  written.  The  old 
formula,  "The  Law  and  the  Prophets,"  was  reversed,  so  as  to 
read  "The  Prophets  and  the  Law."  It  was  discovered  that 
the  prophets  were  chiefly  preachers  to  their  own  times;  that 
they  were  but  little  concerned  with  predicting  future  events; 
and  that  it  was  largely  through  their  efforts  that  the  religion 
of  the  Hebrews  was  purified  from  its  original  heathen,  or  pagan, 
elements.  The  new  movement  in  biblical  research  took  shape 
among  French,  German,  and  English  investigators,  and  at  last 
came  to  a  focus  around  the  brilliant  work  by  Professor  Well-Ni 
hausen,  of  the  University  of  Marburg,  entitled  Geschichte  ; 
Israels,  published  in  the  year  1878.  In  that  masterly  work,  ' 
the  new  literary  and  historical  study  of  the  Bible  was  formu- 
lated and  extended  in  such  a  way  as  to  command  the  attention 


9 


xii  PREFATORY 

and  assent  of  learned  specialists;  and  it  produced  a  revolution, 
jit  has  been  well  said  by  Professor  I^ujsnen,  one  of  the  leaders  of 
'the  Dutch  critical  school,  that  the  publication  of  Wellhausen's 
Geschichte  was  the  climax  of  a  long  campaign  for  scientific 
study  of  the  Bible.1 

The  progress  of  scientific  research  and  discovery  in  all 
departments  of  investigation  was  naturally  opposed  by  the 
constituted  authorities  in  Church  and  State.  Professors  who 
showed  heretical  symptoms  in  their  opinions  about  astronomy, 
geology,  history,  or  the  Bible  were  dismissed  from  their 
chairs.  But  this  policy  advertised  the  new  views;  and  as  the 
various  aspects  of  scientific  inquiry  were  better  understood,  it 
became  impossible  to  secure  instructors  who  completely 
adhered  to  the  older  theories.  As  the  public  began  to  reap  the 
benefits  of  scientific  research,  the  truth  was  gradually  per- 
ceived that  the  work  of  science  cannot  be  indorsed  at  one  point, 
or  at  a  few  points,  without  being  encouraged  everywhere.  The 
nineteenth  century  beheld  the  culmination  of  scientific 
triumphs  in  the  establishment  of  the  right  of  untrammeled 
investigation  of  the  Bible  in  institutions  of  learning. 

The  new  view  of  the  Bible  is  bound  up  with  ajq£w  idea  oj 
Hebrew  history  and  a  new  conception  of  the  religious  life  of 
.Israel.    The  religious  experience  of  Israel  is  now  seen  to  have  \ 
been  a  rise  toward  a  higher  and  purer  faith,  instead  of  a 
;  decline  toward  a  lower  one.     The  new  views  have  largely^/ 
v  displaced  the  older  doctrines  in  all  the  leading  universities  and 
theological  seminaries.     They  are  held  in  various  forms  by 
different  scholars;  but  there  is  a  common  basis  of  agreement 
which  rapidly  grows  larger  as  the  fundamental  facts  are  better 
understood  by  professional  minds. 

The  interested  public,  standing  outside  the  academic  world, 
is  aware  that  great  changes  have  taken  place  and  are  even  now 
going  on;  but  the  real  nature  of  the  new  scientific  view  of  the 

1  Kuenen,  The  Hexateuch  (London,  1886),  Introduction,  p.  xxxix. 


PREFATORY  xiii 

Bible,  and  the  evidence  upon  which  that  view  is  based,  are  but 
little  understood  by  the  laity.  The  public  as  yet  scarcely 
realizes  the  extent  to  which  the  evolutionary  principle  has  been 
applied  to  the  religion  of  Israel.  Professional  investigators, 
who  have  given  the  most  and  closest  attention  to  the  Bible, 
firmly  believe  that  the  idea  of  God  by  which  ancient  Israel 
finally  came  to  be  distinguished,  is  the  result  of  a  slow  process 
of  psychological,  or  spiritual,  development,  corresponding  in 
some  way  to  stages  in  the  national  history  of  the  Hebrews. 
Professor  George  Adam  Smith,  now  principal  of  the  University 
of  Aberdeen,  spoke  as  follows,  in  a  course  of  lectures  delivered 
at  Yale  University,  and  reprinted  under  the  title  Modern 
Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament: 

The  god  of  early  Israel  was  a  tribal  god;  and  His  relation  to  His 
people  is  described  in  the  same  way  as  Israel's  neighbors  describe  the 
relation  of  their  gods  to  themselves.  Israel  looked  to  Jahweh  [Yahweh1] 

as  the  Moabites  looked  to  Chemosh They  prayed  to  Him  to  let 

them  see  their  desire  on  their  enemies,  ascribed  their  victories  to  His  love 
for  them,  their  defeats  to  His  anger,  and  they  devoted  to  Hun  in  slaughter 
their  prisoners  of  war,  and  the  animals  they  captured  from  their  foes; 
all  exactly  as  their  Moabite  neighbors  are  reported,  in  very  much  the 
same  language,  to  have  done  to  Chemosh,  the  god  of  Moab.  Moreover, 
they  regarded  the  power  of  Jahweh  as  limited  to  their  own  territory,  and 
his  worship  as  invalid  beyond  it  (I  Sam.  26:19  [in  the  Hebrew  and 
modern  Revised  Versions]).  Though,  like  all  Semites,  they  felt  their 

1  The  name  "Jehovah"  was  never  known  to  the  ancient  Hebrews.  "Yahweh" 
is  perhaps  as  near  as  we  can  come  to  the  original  usage.  Thus,  the  word  "hallelujah" 
means,  "praise  Yah,"  the  j  being  pronounced  like  y.  Sometimes  the  name  was 
abbreviated,  as  in  Ps.  68 -.4:  "His  name  is  YAH."  It  appears  repeatedly  as  a  syllable 
in  the  names  of  Hebrew  persons,  as  Isaiah,  Elijah,  Jeremiah,  Hezekiah,  etc.  The 
Hebrew  manuscripts  originally  contained  the  name  in  the  form  of  the  Sacred  Tetra- 
grammaton,  Y-H-W-H,  JTirP.  But  this  gives  us  only  the  consonants;  not  the 
vowels.  The  Tetragrammaton  occurs  about  six  thousand  eight  hundred  times  in 
the  Bible.  It  is  usually  represented  in  the  King  James  Version  by  "the  LORD,"  or 
"GOD"  in  capitals  and  small  capitals;  and  rarely,  as  "Jehovah."  The  American  Re- 
vised Version,  however,  takes  us  one  step  closer  to  the  Hebrew  by  abandoning  this 
usage,  and  printing  "Jehovah"  whenever  the  Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  the  Hebrew. 

We  make  use  of  the  form  "Yahweh"  in  accordance  with  the  practice  now  estab- 
lished in  modern  scientific  treatises. 


xiv  PREFATORY 

duty  to  one  God  as  the  supreme  Lord  of  themselves,  they  did  not  deny 
the  reality  of  other  gods.1 

The  foregoing  passage  relates  only  to  the  historical,  objective 
aspects  of  the  Hebrew  situation.  The  same  writer  states  his 
theological  view  of  the  subject  as  follows: 

r  Behind  that  national  deity  of  Israel,  and  through  the  obscure  and  vain 
/  imaginations  the  early  nation  had  of  him,  there  were  present  the  Char- 
acter and  Will  of  God  himself,  using  the  people's  low  thoughts  and  sym- 
bols to  express  himself  to  them,  lifting  them  always  a  little  higher,  and 
finally  making  himself  known  as  he  did  through  the  prophets  as  the  God 
of  the  Whole  Earth,  identical  with  righteousness  and  abounding  in 
mercy.3 

This  view  is  the  belief  and  faith  of  a  devout  scholar;  and  it 
represents  the  attitude  of  by  far  the  large  majority  of  those  who 
have  approached  the  problem  of  the  Bible  in  a  scientific  way. 
As  a  rule,  the  modern  biblical  investigator  holds  that  the 
religion  of  the  Hebrews  began  on  the  level  of  what  we  commonly 
call  "paganism,"  or  "heathenism."  He  believes  that  "Yah- 
weh,"  the  national  deity  of  Israel,  was  at  first  regarded  as  a 
local  god,  one  of  a  large  number  of  divinities  that  populated 
the  mind  of  the  ancient  world;  that  the  people's  thought 
about  him  slowly  rose  to  the  height  at  which  we  find  it  in  the 
great  prophets  and  in  Jesus;  and  that  this  religious  evolution 
was  a  process  guided  and  controlled  by  the  one  true  God  of 
the  universe,  who  was  gradually  raising  men's  thoughts 
\upward  through  the  medium  of  their  daily  experiences.  Thus, 
while  the  devout  scholar  does  not  identify  "  Yahweh"  with  the 
true  God,  he  believes  that  Jbe^true  God  was  using  the  idea  gf 

^^ — ^ -^  '•" ••      '  "    '"  "* 

Yahweh  in  such  a  way  as  to  cause  that  idea  more  and  more 
to  take  the  character  of  a  worthy  symbol  of  religion.  This 
theological  position,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  puts  far  less  strain  on 
the  modern  intellect  than  does  the  older  orthodoxy,  and  makes 

1  G.  A.  Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament  (New  York, 
1901),  pp.  128,  129. 

2  Biblical  World  (Chicago,  August,  1896),  pp.  100,  101. 


PREFATORY  xv 

it  possible  for  men  to  remain  within  the  church  who  would 
otherwise  be  outside  of  it.  The  reverent  scholar  believes  that 
God  uses  the  history  of  Israel,  and  the  history  of  the  world,  for 
an  ineffable,  divine  purpose  which  works  out  slowly  across  the 
ages.  He  sees  that  the  human  spirit  works  its  purpose  within 
the  terms  of  those  natural  "laws"  of  physiology,  chemistry, 
and  political  economy  which  condition  the  bodily  and  social 
existence  of  mankind;  and  he  believes  that  the  universe 
expresses  God's  personality  hi  the  same  way  that  a  human  life 
gives  expression  to  human  personality. 

While  it  is  but  just  and  proper  to  speak  here  of  the  religious 
and  theological  beliefs  that  characterize  the  body  of  modern 
biblical  critics,  it  should  be  said  again  that  this  book  is  a  purely 
scientific  study  of  the  Bible,  which  undertakes  to  state  the  con- 
nections between  the  various  facts  of  Hebrew  history  and 
religion.  The  limitations  of  our  method  forbid  us  to  discuss 
the  inner,  metaphysical,  or  theological  aspect  of  the  facts. 
We  take  for  granted  that  Bible  students  "must  acquire  the 
art  of  historical  construction  by  which  ....  they  may  .... 
reproduce  the  history  of  Israel's  religious  experience,  from 
those  early  days  when  Jehovah  [Yahweh]  was  a  tribal  God  who 
went  out  to  battle  against  the  gods  of  other  desert  tribes."1 
Although  the  subject  may  be  approached  from  a  variety  of 
standpoints,  the  plan  of  this  investigation  confines  our  study 
to  one  point  of  view. 

Having  indicated  the  road  over  which  biblical  investigators 
are  traveling,  it  is  now  in  order  to  emphasize  that  they  have 
not  yet  reached  their  destination.  This  is  admitted  by  the 
leading  exponents  of  modern  biblical  research  and  interpreta- 
tion. The  central  feature  of  the  entire  problem  is,  of  course, 
the  development  of  the  Yahweh  religion.  We  can  see  very 
plainly  that  the  idea  of  Yahweh  in  the  earlier  Old  Testament  • 
documents  is  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  later  documents.^ 

1  Editorial,  Biblical  World  (Chicago,  April,  1911),  p.  221. 


xvi  PREFATORY 

What  is  the  explanation  of  this  difference?  How  is  the 
religious  evolution  before  us  to  be  understood  ?  In  what  terms 
are  we  to  describe  it?  Professor  Wellhausen  himself  has 
lately  said  that  we  cannot  tell  why  Yahweh  of  Israel,  rather 
than  the  god  Chemosh  of  Moab,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  evolved  into  the  righteous  God  of  the  universe.1 
President  Francis  Brown,  of  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
has  recently  written  that  the  problem  of  the  differentiation 
of  the  later  Yahweh  from  the  earlier  Yahweh,  as  well  as  from 
the  gods  of  other  nations,  has  not  been  solved.2  Professor 
Cook,  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  writes  in  a  more 
general  way  as  follows: 

While  practically  all  students  of  the  Old  Testament  agree  that  a 
thoroughgoing  traditional  standpoint  is  untenable,  opinion  differs  as  to 
the  extent  to  which  the  results  of  modern  criticism  are  really  assured. 
The  great  majority  of  scholars,  however,  accept  the  Wellhausen  literary 
theory,  but  they  differ  in  regard  to  its  application  to  the  early  develop- 
ment of  Israel.  External  evidence,  alone,  clearly  guarantees  neither 
accuracy  of  inference  nor  convergence  of  results,  and  since  Old  Testament 
research  is  bound  not  to  remain  stationary,  the  conflicting  and  complex 
tendencies  inspire  the  belief  that  the  present  stage  is  a  transitory  one.3 

To  the  same  effect;  Professor  Sanday,  of  Oxford  University, 
says: 

The  fashioning  of  the  methods  by  which  the  secret  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  to  be  approached  and  elicited  has  taken  many  centuries.  We  are 
not  yet  agreed  about  it ;  but  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  being  too  sanguine 
to  feel  that  we  are  drawing  nearer  to  it.4 

In  a  treatise  on  the  history  of  Bible-study,  Professor  George 
H.  Gilbert  also  speaks  of  the  "partial  and  imperfect  dawn  of  a 

'Wellhausen,  "Israelitisch-jiidische  Religion,"  in  Kullur  der  Gegenwart  (Berlin, 
1909),  Teil  I,  15. 

2  Old  Testament  and  Semitic  Studies  in  Honor  of  William  Rainey  Harper  (Chicago, 
1908),  p.  xxx. 

3  Essays  on  Some  Biblical  Questions  by  Members  of  the  University  of  Cambridge 
(London,  1909),  p.  54. 

4  Sanday,  The  Oracles  of  God  (London,  1891),  p.  120. 


PREFATORY  xvii 

new  era  of  interpretation."1  This  general  attitude,  we  believe, 
is  that  of  all  candid  biblical  investigators  whose  method  and 
standpoint  are  those  of  the  prevailing  school  of  scientific 
research.  We  have  compared  the  modern  school  to  travelers 
who  have  not  reached  their  destination;  but  another  figure 
may  also  be  employed.  The  scientific  view  of  the  Bible  is  like 
a  house  in  process  of  construction.  Most  opponents  of  the 
evolutionary  view  of  Israel's  religion  make  the  tactical  mistake 
of  assuming  that  the  house  is  completed;  and  they  criticize  it 
on  the  basis  of  that  assumption.  But  while  some  of  the  second- 
hand popularizers  of  the  modern  view  have  committed  the 
same  error,  no  reliable,  first-hand  authority  has  ever  said  any- 
thing of  the  kind;  and  the  attitude  of  responsible  scholarship 
has  always  been  to  the  effect  of  the  testimony  quoted  above. 
The  "house"  is  in  process  of  construction.2 

These  frank  admissions  by  scientific  investigators  of  the 
Bible  are  to  be  held  sharply  in  mind  when  examining  the 
opinions  of  the  modern  school  respecting  the  development  of 
Hebrew  religion.  As  the  result  of  an  inquiry  whose  details 
need  not  be  given  here,  it  may  be  fairly  said  that  such  opinions 
find  an  average  in  the  proposition  that  the  religious  develop- 
ment of  Israel  is  to  be  explained  by  the  "genius  of  the  great 
prophets."  This  way  of  stating  the  case  is  varied  by  saying 

1  Gilbert,  History  of  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible  (New  York,  1908),  pp.  291,  292. 
Cf.  Jordan,  Comparative  Religion  (New  York,  1905),  p.  491. 

2  The  assumption  that  the  modern  view  is  a  finished  system  is  one  of  the  mistakes 
that  vitiate  the  recent  volume  entitled  The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  Professor 
James  Orr,  of  the  United  Free  Church  College,  of  Glasgow.     While  making  concessions 
to  the  modern  school,  Professor  Orr  speaks  on  behalf  of  traditionalism.     It  has  been 
observed  with  what  appears  to  be  great  probability,  that  Orr's  work  shows  signs  of 
having  been  written  many  years  ago,  soon  after  the  publication  of  Wellhausen's 
Geschichte,   and   then   retouched   here   and   there.     If  this  deduction  is  correct,  it 
goes  a  long  way  toward  explaining  the  general  atmosphere  of  Professor  Orr's  book. 
If  it  were  not  composed  soon  after   the  publication  of  Wellhausen's  treatise,  its 
author's  views  were  certainly  formed  at  that  time,  and  then  taken  many  years  later, 
by  unsuspecting  persons,  as  the  "latest  conclusions,"  etc.    The  present  writer  has 
discussed  certain  phases  of  Professor  Orr's  work  in  a  paper  in  the  American  Journal 
of  Theology  (Chicago,  April,  1908),  pp.  241-49. 


xviii  PREFATORY 

~.  that  the  creative  influence  of  the  prophets  is  due  to  "their 
peculiar  experience  of  God."  It  is  not  probable  that  scholars 
will  continue  to  state  their  opinions  in  this  form  as  the  scientific 

(interpretation  of  the  Bible  proceeds  into  stages  of  greater 
maturity.  It  is  only  with  feelings  of  respect  for  the  modern 
school,  and  of  gratitude  for  its  indispensable  service  to  the 
cause  of  scientific  learning,  that  the  writer  ventures  the  opinion 
that  this  view  of  Israel's  religious  evolution  belongs  in  the 
realm  of  theology  and  metaphysics  only,  and  that  it  has  no 
standing  as  a  matter  of  science  and  history. 

Modern  scientific  investigation  of  the  Bible,  after  all,  is 
only  a  special  application  of  methods  already  employed  in 
examining  the  literature  and  history  of  the  world's  great 
nations.  Scientific  biblical  research,  therefore,  is  not  a  thing 
in  a  corner.  It  is  answerable  to  the  progress  of  method  in  the 
study  of  all  human  history.  The  "historical  method"  took 
its  rise  among  the  ancient  Greeks,  who  were  the  first  to  achieve 
emancipation  from  the  reign  of  mythology.  The  beginnings 
of  the  process  are  described  by  Professor  Bury,  of  Cambridge 
University,  in  his  Harvard  lectures  on  the  ancient  Greek 
historians : 

Long  before  history,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  came  to  be 
written,  the  early  Greeks  possessed  a  literature  which  was  equivalent  to 
history  for  them,  and  was  accepted  with  unreserved  credence — their  epic 

poems The  age  of  the  heroes,  as  described  in  the  epics,  was 

marked  by  divine  interventions,  frequent  intercourse  between  gods  and 

men,  startling  metamorphoses,  and  all  kinds  of  miracles Every 

self-respecting  city  sought  to  connect  itself,  through  its  ancient  clans, 
with  the  Homeric  heroes,  and  this  constituted  the  highest  title  to  prestige 
in  the  Greek  world 

One  of  the  most  serious  impediments  blocking  the  way  to  a  scientific 
examination  of  early  Greece  [by  the  Greek  historians  themselves]  was  the 
orthodox  belief  in  Homer's  omniscience  and  infallibility — a  belief  which 
survived  the  attacks  of  the  Ionian  philosophers  and  the  irony  of  Thucy- 
dides.  Eratosthenes  boldly  asserted  the  principle  that  the  critic,  in 
studying  Homer,  must  remember  that  the  poet's  knowledge  was  limited 


PREFATORY  xix 

by  the  conditions  of  his  age,  which  was  a  comparatively  ignorant 
age 

The  Greeks  did  not  suddenly  create,  but  rather  by  a  gradual  process 
of  criticism  evolved  history,  disengaging  it  from  the  mythic  envelope  in 
which  fact  and  fiction  were  originally  blended 

In  his  Introduction  Thucydides  announces  a  new  conception  of  his- 
torical writing He  saw,  as  we  see,  that  the  mythical  element 

pervaded  Herodotus  (of  whom,  evidently,  he  was  chiefly  thinking)  no 
less  than  Homer.  His  own  experience  in  ascertaining  contemporary 
facts  taught  him,  as  nothing  else  could  do,  how  soon  and  how  easily 
events  are  wont  to  pass  into  the  borders  of  myth 

If  the  Greeks  had  possessed  records  extending  over  the  history  of  two 
or  three  thousand  years,  the  conception  of  causal  development  would 
probably  have  emerged,  and  they  might  have  founded  scientific  history. 
The  limitation  of  their  knowledge  of  the  past  to  a  few  centuries  disabled 
them  from  evolving  this  idea.1 

The  process  begun  by  the  ancient  Greeks  was  adjourned 
throughout  the  Middle  Ages  in  Europe,  and  then  taken  up  by 
modern  historical  scholars.  One  of  the  leading  investigators 
of  the  problem  of  history  was  the  great  German  scholar 
Niebuhr,  who  reconstructed  ancient  Roman  history.  As  Nie- 
buhr  said,  "many  of  the  narratives  in  the  earliest  history 
of  Rome  betray  their  fabulous  nature  by  the  contradictions 
and  impossibilities  they  involve."2  All  nations  have  con- 
fidently held  certain  beliefs  about  their  early  history,  which  the 
scientific  scholar  is  bound  to  challenge.  For  example,  the 
Romans  believed  that  their  government  was  connected  with 
Romulus  and  Remus,  two  sons  of  Mars,  the  god  of  war.  These 
brothers  were  born  of  a  virgin.  When  they  reached  manhood, 
there  was  a  dispute  as  to  which  of  them  should  have  the  honor 
of  naming  the  city.  The  controversy  was  terminated  by  the 
victory  of  Romulus,  who  had  the  larger  number  of  adherents. 
The  city  was  named  after  him;  and  he  became  king.  When 
the  time  of  his  death  arrived,  the  light  of  the  sun  was  veiled; 

1  Bury,  The  Ancient  Greek  Historians  (New  York,  1909),  pp.  2,  10,  2,  189,  240,  81, 
258. 

2  Niebuhr,  History  of  Rome  (New  York,  1826),  Vol.  I,  p.  603. 


xx  PREFATORY 

and  while  the  earth  was  plunged  in  shade,  the  king's  father, 
Mars,  descended  in  a  whirlwind  and  carried  his  son  to  heaven 
in  a  chariot  of  fire.  Later,  the  spirit  of  the  glorified  hero 
appeared  to  one  of  the  Roman  nobles  with  the  message  that 
he  would  watch  over  the  fortunes  of  Rome  in  the  form  of  a 
god.  For  many  centuries,  this  mythology  was  a  matter  of 
literal  and  serious  belief  among  the  Roman  people.  Its  affinity 
with  the  Homeric  tales  of  early  Greece  is  so  close  and  obvious 
as  to  require  no  comment. 

The  earliest  way  of  treating  history,  then,  consists  in 
accepting  uncritically  all  traditions  that  come  down  from  the 
past,  and  weaving  these  traditions  together  into  a  connected 
narrative.  The  mythological  part  of  tradition  may  relate  to 
"the  gods,"  or  it  may  turn  around  actual  historical  characters, 
such  as  David,  Charlemagne,  Alfred,  Napoleon,  or  Washing- 
ton. But  the  frame  of  mind  which  leads  to  the  uncritical 
acceptance  of  all  tradition  is  fundamentally  the  same,  and  has 
been  well  described  by  Niebuhr  as  "the  prostration  of  the 
understanding  and  judgment."  Whoever  would  really  know 
human  history,  and  understand  the  social  problem  now  pressing 
upon  us  for  solution,  must  reckon  with  the  important  fact  of 
mythology.  It  was  the  perception  of  this  principle  with  more 
or  less  vividness  that  led  the  ancient  Greek  historians  to  lay  the 
foundations  of  the  critical,  historical  method.  The  realization 
of  the  same  truth  in  a  fuller  degree  has  been  a  factor  of  high 
importance  in  the  modern  progress  of  historical  science.  Thus, 
opposition  to  the  historical  method  necessarily  carries  one  back 
toward  mythology.  To  oppose  criticism  is  to  be  uncritical. 

The  scientific  historian,  first  of  all,  seeks  to  ascertain  "facts." 
He  does  not  at  first  undertake  to'interpret  facts.  He  simply 
tries  to  lay  bare  what  may  be  called  "the  raw  material  of 
history."  This  fundamental  inquiry  is  dealt  with  by  analyzing 
the  evidence  that  bears  upon  the  situation.  The  Greeks,  as 
Professor  Bury  says,  evolved  history  by  "disengaging  it  from 


PREFATORY  xxi 

its  mythic  envelope"  (supra).  The  primary  work  of  the 
scientific  investigator  of  history,  then,  is  to  draw  the  distinction 
between  myths  and  facts.  On  the  one  side,  he  accumulates 
a  mass  of  real  or  supposed  myths;  and  on  the  other  side,  he 
gathers  a  mass  of  real  or  supposed  facts.  The  myths  are  not 
cast  into  the  limbo  of  mere  curiosities.  They  are  held  aside 
for  later  study  and  interpretation.  As  a  rule,  they  are  not 
mere  idle  tales;  and  they  teach  positive  lessons  about  history 
even  when  they  are  not  accepted  as  literally  true. 

After  facts  have  been  separated  from  their  mythic  envelope, 
the  demands  upon  the  historian  become  different.  There  now 
emerges  the  leading  question,  What  are  the  connections  between 
the  facts  ?  How  are  the  facts  related  to  each  other  ?  How  is 
history  to  be  controlled  and  interpreted?  In  other  words, 
after  the  historian  has  taken  his  material  apart  (analysis),  he 
is  called  upon  to  put  it  together  (synthesis).  The  most  fruitful 
treatment  of  history  from  the  synthetic  point  of  view  has  been 
made  only  in  modern  times,  and  within  the  last  few  generations. 
The  history  of  the  civilized  world  has  been  carefully  investi- 
gated and  rewritten;  and  there  has  also  appeared  a  crowd  of 
*  *  historical  sciences ' '  dealing  with  various  phases,  or  aspects, 
of  history — political,  religious,  moral,  domestic,  economic, 
legal,  etc. 

But  the  modern  writing  of  history  has  not  exhausted  the 
possibilities  of  the  subject.  The  consideration  that  now 
forces  itself  into  view  is  the  fact  that  all  historical  specialists 
are  working,  from  different  points  of  approach,  upon  the  same 
subject,  the  problem  of  organized  human  life.  The  full  mean- 
ing  of  this  fact,  however,  is  not  calculated  to  break  upon  the 
mind  at  a  single  stroke.  The  political  historian,  for  instance, 
is  engaged  upon  facts  which  may  also  be  treated  from  other 
standpoints  by  the  economist  or  the  moralist.  The  various 
phases,  or  aspects,  of  history  cannot  be  held  apart  as  inde- 
pendent series  of  facts.  No  single  one  of  these  disciplines,  or 


xxii       ,  PREFATORY 

sciences,  can  treat  its  problems  without  leaving  its  territory 
and  appealing  to  facts  that  confessedly  stand  outside  of  its 
purview.  Hence,  the  special  historical  or  social  sciences  are 
abstractions  (matters  abstracted,  or  taken  away)  from  the  con- 
crete sum  total  of  human  life.  Thus,  politics,  economics, 
morals,  religion,  etc.,  investigate  the  same  human  life  which  is 
found  in  all  the  special  facts.  So  that  if  human  history  is 
ever  to  be  really  known  and  explained  it  must  be  treated  as 
an  "organic  whole." 

Now,  the  investigation  and  description  of  the  connecting 

7     \  -_ ^^••^**^^*****"'^*^^^^^»^W^^^JB^**-*'™*™^^^fc^  ^ 

rjrinciples  ofjustory  has_ta|gn  to  itself  .the  term,  "s&cjplogy" 
— tfee~wofct  about  society,  or  the  logic  of  society.  Probably 
there  will  never  be  a  large  number  of  investigators  devoted 
entirely  to  the  work  of  pure  sociology;  but  the  sociological 
standpoint  is  gradually  becoming  more  and  more  common  to 
all  scientific  workers  in  the  field  of  history.  Sociology  was 
formerly  regarded  in  some  quarters  as  a  campaign  to  crowd 
aside  the  economist,  the  political  scientist,  the  moralist,  and  all 
other  scholars,  and  organize  their  materials  into  a  new  philoso- 
phy which  was  to  take  the  place  of  the  disciplines  already 
established.  While  some  overzealous  writers  may  have  con- 
veyed such  an  impression,  nothing  could  be  farther  from  the 
aims  of  responsible  workers  in  this  line  of  research.  The  aim  of 
scientific  sociology  is  to  help  specialists  in  all  fields  of  historico- 
social  investigation  to  work  more  consciously  in  view  of  their  / 
common  subject-matter — human  life  as  a  whole.  Specialists 
are  always  in  danger  of  devitalizing  their  material  by  treating 
it  abstractly;  and  in  the  degree  that  they  realize  the  inter- 
connection of  their  studies,  they  will  co-operate  efficiently  in 
expounding  the  problems  of  human  life. 

Sociology  approaches  history  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
evolution  of  the  "  social  group."  Here,  again,  the  full  meaning 
of  the  statement  is  not  at  once  clear.  "The  idea  of  the  group 


PREFATORY  xxiii 

a£^j^ans_of_interpretation  is  emerging  more  clearly,"  writes 
President  George  E.  Vincent,  of  the  University  of  Mfnnesota. 
"Society  is  too  vague  and  abstract  a  concept.  It  is  useful  for 
symbolic  purposes  and  for  generalized  description,  but  to  have 
any  vividness  of  meaning  it  must  be  translated  into  more  con- 
crete terms."1  Hurjoajri_  history, .is  not  concerned  with  the 
doings  of  isolated  individuals,  who,  like  Robinson  Crusoe,  live 
apart  by  themselves.  It  relates  to  the  evolution  of  organized 
grpupSj^or _cojnmunities.  The  different  historical  disciplines, 
or  social  sciences,  approach  the  mechanism  of  society  from  a 
number  of  standpoints.  Thus,  while'  economics,  politics, 
ethics,  ecclesiastics,  etc.,  are  engaged  upon  the  study  of  social 
groups,  they  treat  the  matter  from  different  angles.  Econonir 
ics  considers  the  industrial  phase  of  group-life;  politics,  the 
governmental  forms  and  activities  of  the  group;  ethics,  the 
moral  standards;  ecclesiastics,  the  religious  ideas  and  institu- 
tions; and  so  on.  Sociology  attempts  to  describe  the  structure 
and  life  of  social  mechanisms,  and  thus  to  give  a  point  of 
departure  for  all  special  studies  in  history  and  the  social 
problem.  History  is  the  biography  of  human  society;  and  if  it 
is  to  be  explained  in  a  scientific  way,  it  must  be  treated  as  an 
' '  organic  whole. ' '  Sociology  attempts  to  correlate  the  essential  ?; 
facts  and  forces  of  life  in  a  single  perspective. 

The  meaning  of  sociology,  however,  is  best  indicated,  not  by 
the  multiplication  of  general  statements,  but  by  an  appeal  to 
some  concrete,  practical  human  interest.  This  book  illustrates 
the  standpoint  of  modern  sociology  in  reference  to  the  "reli- 
gious" interest.  Its  view  is  that  the  still  unfinished  historical 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  can  be  completed  only  in  terms  of 
sociology.  It  is  written  in  the  belief  that  the  division  of 
scientific  scholarship  into  "departments"  has  delayed  the  full 
appreciation  and  use  of  scientific  results  among  scholars  them- 

1  American  Journal  of  Sociology  (Chicago,  January,  1911),  p.  469. 


xxiv  PREFATORY 

selves;  and  its  form  is  due  to  the  conviction  that  the  intelligent 
public  may  now  be  taken  more  fully  into  the  field  of  biblical 
and  sociological  study. 

It  has  perhaps  already  become  clear  that  the  book  is  an 
examination  of  Hebrew  history  in  relation  to  the  idea  of  God. 
The  older  view  of  the  Bible  and  its  religion  did  not  suppose  that 
the  history  of  the  Hebrew  people  had  anything  to  do  with 
shaping,  or  "causing,"  the  religious  ideas  peculiar  to  Israel; 
and  the  thought  of  such  a  connection  is  even  yet  a  novelty  to 
most  readers  of  the  Bible.  But  it  should  be  observed  at  once 
that  the  old  view  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  Hebrew  religion  is 
bound  up  with  a  view  of  Hebrew  history  which  has  been  dis- 
credited in  all  the  foremost  institutions  of  learning.  According 
to  the  old  view,  the  nation  called  "Israel"  consisted  of  the 
descendants  of  a  single  race,  or  family.  It  was  organized  at  a 
single  stroke,  in  the  wilderness  of  Arabia.  Taking  the  form  of 
a  mighty  army,  under  the  generalship  of  a  single  commander, 
the  militant  nation  attacked  the  land  of  Canaan,  drove  out  the 
"  Amorites,"  and  then  divided  the  entire  land  by  lot  among  the 
different  clans  or  tribes  which  constituted  the  invading  army. 
This  view  is  based  on  the  first  six  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment known  as  the  Hexateuch,  which  comprise  the  titles  from 
Genesis  through  Joshua.  The  traditional  view  stated  in  a 
"sociological"  way,  then,  is  that  the  group-organization  of  the 
Hebrews  was  determined  and  fixed  by  law  at  the  very  beginning 
of  the  national  history,  and  was  not  the  result  of  development 

But  modern  historical  investigation  has  demonstrated  that 
the  Hexateuch  in  its  present  form  is  a  very  late  product  of 
Hebrew  life;  that  it  was  unknown  to  the  Hebrews  throughout 
the  larger  part  of  their  time  of  residence  in  Palestine;  and  that 
the  conception  of  the  national  history  which  has  just  been 
cited  is  impossible.  We  can  state  only  the  facts  in  this  place 
leaving  the  study  of  details  and  evidence  to  the  formal  part  of 
our  treatise.  The  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  are 


PREFATORY  xxv 

older  than  the  Hexateuch ;  and  the  story  which  they  tell  about 
the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  nation  departs  conspicuously  from 
that  of  the  narratives  embodied  in  the  first  six  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  According  to  these  older  documents,  the  land 
of  Canaan  was  invaded,  not  by  a  "nation"  organized  as  a 
grand  army  under  one  general,  but  by  a  number  of  independent 
clans  which  had  no  common  organization.  These  clans, 
coming  in  from  the  desert,  merely  succeeded  in  planting  them- 
selves here  and  there  in  the  highlands  of  Judah,  Ephraim,  and 
Gilead.  They  did  not  drive  out  nor  annihilate  the  Amorites; 
but  the  previous  inhabitants  remained  in  possession  of  a  long 
list  of  walled  cities,  most  of  which  were  in  the  lowlands.  The 
Hebrew  nation,  as  known  to  history,  arose  at  the  point  of  coales- 
cence between  the  incoming  Israelite  clans  and  the  Amorite  city- 
states  already  established  in  Canaan.  The  Amorite  cities 
remained  for  a  time  independent  (throughout  the  period  of  the 
Judges  and  the  reign  of  King  Saul) ;  but  under  the  House  of 
David,  the  earlier  inhabitants  became  assimilated  with  the 
Israelite  monarchy,  and  lost  their  racial  identity.  During  the 
long  period  between  the  original  invasion  and  the  great  Baby- 
lonian captivity,  the  Hebrew  people  and  their  kings  did  not 
observe  the  law  of  the  national  constitution  recorded  in  the 
Hexateuch ;  and  this  law  was  finally  brought  forward  in  its  com- 
pleted form,  and  adopted  after  the  Captivity,  by  the  "Jews,"  a 
remnant  of  the  old  Hebrew  people. 

This  general  view  is  novel  to  the  layman;  but  it  is  a  com- 
monplace to  the  scholar  who  is  in  possession  of  the  results  of 
scientific  investigation  of  the  Bible.  The  origin  of  the  Hebrew 
nation  at  the  point  of  coalescence  between  Israelites  and 
Amorites  has  been  often  pointed  out  by  critical  historians;  but 
while  the  fact  is  known  to  all  scientific  students  of  the  Bible, 
its  vital  and  intimate  connection  with  the  problem  of  Hebrew 
religion  has  not  been  worked  out.  This  is  due,  not  to  the  lack 
of  "evidence,"  but  to  the  fact  that  biblical  scholarship,  as  a 


I 

! 


xxvi  PREFATORY 

whole,  has  not  yet  made  the  standpoint  of  modern  sociology  its 
own.1  The  technique  of  the  study  undertaken  in  this  book 
may  be  stated  here  in  a  brief,  introductory  form. 

A  great  struggle  arose  between  the  standpoints  of  the  two 
races  that  united  in  the  development  of  the  Hebrew  nation. 
In  the  long  run,  the  two  sides  of  the  struggle  came  to  be 
symbolized  by  the  terms  "Yahweh"  and  "Baal,"  which 
indicate  the  gods  of  the  races  that  combined  in  the  national 
group.  By  one  and  the  same  process,  the  national  deity 
Yahweh  became  identified  with  warfare  against  "other  gods" 
and  warfare  against  "injustice."  Although  the  process  was  a 
very  gradual  one,  reaching  its  issue  only  by  slow  stages,  the 
logic  of  the  final  result  was  present  in  the  situation  from  the 
time  the  Israelites  and  Amorites  combined  in  the  same  group. 
Like  a  spirit  of  invisible  fate,  this  logic  tormented  and  pursued 
the  prophets,  until  at  last  the  l^ocal^aalrworshipj ,  derived  from 
the  Amorites,  became  the  means  whereby  the  Hebrew  religion 
was  detached  from  polytheism  and  injustice.  This  peculiar 
development  6F "religion  took  place  within  the  terms  of  the 
Hebrew  group-evolution,  which,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  was 
unlike  that  of  any  other  ancient  people. 

The  Amorites,  who  were  already  planted  in  the  land,  had  no 
national  government  and  no  national  religion.  They  con- 
sisted of  independent  city-states,  each  of  which  worshiped  its 
own  god,  or  "Baal."  These  Baals  were  identified  with  the  social 
standpoint  and  economic  ideas  of  settled  civilization.  They 
were  the  divine  "masters,"  or  "owners,"  of  the  Amorite  people; 
and  the  leading  men  of  the  upper  social  class  were  likewise 
called  "baals,"  because  they  were  the  human  owners  of  the 
Amorite  people.  The  common  man  was  looked  upon  with 

1  In  the  case  of  many  individual  scholars,  however,  the  study  of  the  Bible  is  already 
moving  on  from  the  literary  and  historical  stages  into  a  sociological  form.  We  do  not 
seek  to  create  the  impression  that  present-day  biblical  science  is  any  more  backward 
in  its  tendencies  than  other  existing  scientific  disciplines.  The  adoption  of  the  modern 
view  of  Hebrew  history  by  biblical  scholars  is  the  proof  of  this. 


PREFATORY  xxvii 

scant  respect  all  through  ancient  civilization  (but  not  among 
the  nomadic  or  semi-nomadic  peoples  of  the  wilderness).  As 
a  rule,  to  which  there  were  few  exceptions,  most  of  the  inhabi- 
tants in  the  settled  countries  were  in  the  grip  of  some  kind  of 
slavery;  while  a  small,  upper  class  used  all  the  machinery  of 
government  and  religion  to  make  their  grip  firmer.  The  ruling 
force  of  ancient  civilization  was  against  the  modern  ideal  of 
popular  government.  Society  was  defended  from  barbarism 
by  a  paid  police;  while  the  enslaved  peasant  was  treated  as  a 
base  of  military  supplies.  This  theory  of  life  held  sway  among 
the  Babylonians,  Egyptians,  Phoenicians,  Amorites,  and  other 
settled  peoples.1 

On  the  contrary,  the  ideas  and  usages  of  all  unsettled  races 
take  a  different  form.  The  integrity  of  a  wandering  clan 
depends  upon  the  good  treatment  of  its  individual  members. 

^^"^"^     *~  " "          — ^— -— I     "     '     "       I !••"" "•       '•'  "IIIIJ  • _— -_ "' 

Hence,  the  idea  of  "brotherhood"  stands  in  the  forefront  of 
the  social  consciousness  of  migratory,  unsettled  races.  .  While 
ancient  civilization  holds  manhood  at  a  discount,  the  nomadic 
barbarian  takes  manhood  at  its  par  value.  Examples  are  the 
Germanic  tribes  in  ancient  Europe,  the  American  Indians,  the 
Australian  tribes,  the  clans  of  Arabia,  and  other  unsettled 
peoples.  Now,  the  Israelites,  prior  to  the  invasion  of  Canaan, 
were  a  migratory  people,  broken  up  into  small  clans.  Their 
economic  and  social  standpoint  was  expressed  in  their  cus- 
tomary usage,  or  law,  known  as  mishpat.  This  word  is  trans- 
lated in  our  English  Bibles  as  "justice,"  "judgment,"  "that 
which  is  lawful,"  etc.  But  in  one  passage,  the  Hebrew  term 
is  represented  in  modern  letters  as  the  name  of  a  fountain,  or 
spring,  in  the  southern  wilderness:  "En-mishpat  (the  same  is 
Kadesh)."2  This  was  the  "Well  of  Justice,"  where  the  legal 

1  As  we  shall  see  in  the  course  of  our  study,  this  theory  stood  for  the  necessity  of 
the  situation.  The  great  civilizations  that  have  generated  and  built  up  the  progress 
of  history  were  constantly  open  to  the  attacks  of  barbarians;  and  the  imperialistic 
form  of  society  was  a  defensive  measure.  Nevertheless,  it  was  hard  on  the  masses  of 
the  people. 

1  Gen.  14:7. 


xxviii  PREFATORY 

usages  of  the  wilderness  clans  were  declared  in  the  name  of 
Yahweh;  and  the  word  "Kadesh,"  meaning  "holy,"  indicates 
that  it  was  a  sanctuary. 

The  rise  of  the  Hebrew  nation  at  the  point  of  coalescence 
between  Amorites  and  Israelites  brought  the  social  standpoints 
of  ancient  civilization  and  the  primitive  clan  into  sharp  conflict. 
A  great  struggle  was  precipitated  over  the  subject  of  mishpat. 
"What  are  good  law  and  good  morals?"  The  conflict  ulti- 
mately came  to  a  center  about  the  question  whether  Yahweh 
should  be  worshiped  in  the  character  of  a  "civilized"  Baal, 
who  countenanced  the  usages  of  civilization  and  who  was 
distinguished  from  other  gods  only  by  his  might  and  power,  or 
whether  he  should  be  worshiped  in  his  original  character  as  a 
god  of  the  clan  mishpat.  The  more  Israelite  section  of  the 
people  (the  highlanders)  contended  for  the  humane  view  taken 
by  the  wilderness  folk;  and  their  standpoint  was  voiced  by  the 
great  "insurgent"  prophets,  most  of  whom  came  from  small 
places  in  the  open  country.  But  the  more  Amorite  part  of  the 
nation  contended  for  the  "civilized"  view,  with  its  disregard  of 
the  common  man;  and  their  standpoint  was  voiced  by  the 
"regular"  prophets,  who  were  connected  with  the  wealthy 
nobility.  The  mishpat  struggle  commenced  in  a  very  confused 
way,  taking  the  form  of  revolt  against  the  kings.  But  later  it 
assumed  a  more  distinctly  religious  form  when  one  of  the  kings, 
who  had  imported  the  Baal- worship  of  the  wealthy  Phoeni- 
cians, took  away  the  land  of  a  humble  peasant  by  force.  The 
great  prophet  Elijah  now  came  forward,  from  the  highlands  of 
Gilead,  in  defense  of  the  old  Israelite  law  and  morals  for  which 
the  worship  of  Yahweh  had  stood  in  the  wilderness  days.  This 
great  prophet  opposed  the  worship  of  the  foreign  Baal,  which 
was  in  time  thrust  out  by  a  violent  and  bloody  revolution. 
The  social  problem,  however,  was  not  settled  by  such  means; 
and  the  later  prophets  learned  that  it  was  necessary  to  struggle 
not  only  against  the  Baal- worship  imported  from  foreign  parts, 


PREFATORY  xxix 

but  to  fight  the  native  Baalism  which  the  Hebrew  nation  had 
inherited  from  the  Amorite  side  of  its  ancestry.  The^truggle 
betweeji_Yahwism  and  Baalism  was  vastly  more  than  a  mere 
conflict  over  the  question  whether  the  Hebrews  should  bow 
down  to  this  or  that  god.  It  was_^Le.fp_rmjn  which  thejgeat 
underlying  moral  and  economic  struggle  of  classes  came  to  the 
surface  of  history^ 

There  have  been  moral  aspiration  and  endeavor  among  every 
people  under  the  sun.  There  have  been  struggles  between 
rich  and  poor  in  all  nations.  The  Hebrews  had  no  patent  on 
ethics,  and  no  monopoly  of  economic  agitation.  "Rjit  thf 
struggle  which  at  last  came  to  a  burning  focus  around  Yahwism 
and  Baalism  was  the  religious  expression  of  the  unique  political 
development  of  the  Hebrews.  The  peculiarity  of  the  entire 
Old  Testament  situation,  then,  lay  not  in  its  moral  and 
economic  aspects,  but  in  the  uncommon  political  development 
of  society.  This  is  not  at  first  clear  to  those  who  have  not 
completely  assimilated  the  sociological  point  of  view.  The 
secret  lies  in  the  close  connection  between  Church  and  State, 
Religion  and  Politics,  throughout  the  ancient  world.  While 
other  nations  have  had  economic  and  moral  struggles,  no 
national  development  has  ever  taken  exactly  the  same  political 
form  as  that  of  Israel. 

This  is  made  clear  by  the  use  of  a  number  of  illustrations. 
The  Israelite  conquest  of  Canaan  may  be  compared  with  the 
Kassite  conquest  of  Babylonia,  the  Hyksos  conquest  of  Egypt,, 
or,  to  come  nearer  home,  the  Norman  conquest  of  England. 
The  Normans,  the  Kassites,  and  the  Hyksos,  when  going  into 
the  lands  they  conquered,  found  national  group-organizations 
already  formed.     But  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrews,  on  the; 
contrary,  the  previous  inhabitants  of  the  land  had  no  general 
government.     The  Amorites  were  broken  up  into  city-states,  i 
or  provincial  bodies.     And  it  was  the  invading  Israelites  who  1  \ 
eventually  supplied  the  framework  of  national  government  and  j 


V 


xxx  PREFATORY 

religion.  The  Hebrew  kingdom  began  in  the  time  of  Saul,  as 
a  movement  among  the  Israelite  highlanders.  The  older, 
Amorite  population  of  the  land  was  at  length  incorporated  in 
the  monarchy  under  the  House  of  David;  and  the  god  Yahweh 
became  the  national  deity  of  the  entire  group.  In  this  way, 
a  divinity  of  the  wilderness  and  the  hills  was  introduced 
with  comparative  abruptness  to  an  ancient  civilized  people. 
Although  the  Amorites  mingled  their  blood  with  the  new- 
comers', took  the  name  of  Israel,  and  lost  their  identity  as  a 
race,  the  Amorite  standpoint  and  the  Amorite  Baals  remained 
as  powerful  factors  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  Here, 
for  the  first  time  in  history,  we  encounter  a  nation  in  which  the 
struggle  of  classes  takes  the  form  of  a  consistent  warfare 
between  the  gods  of  the  nation  itself.  The  Amorite  Baals 
became  the  dark  villains  of  a  tremendous  moral  drama;  while 
Yahweh  became  the  Mighty  Hero  of  a  long  struggle  against 
"the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite,"  and  then  at  last  the  Redeemer 
of  the  World.  The  religion  of  the  Bible  is,  in  truth,  a  new 
thing.  The  political  variation  of  Hebrew  history  from  that  of 
other  peoples  generated  a  new  "variety"  of  religion.  The 
contact  between  the  cult  of  the  wilderness  and  the  cult  of 
civilization  produced  a  "cross-fertilization  of  culture"  which 
led  to  the  birth  of  a  unique  religion.  A  new  body  of  spiritual 
thought  was  born  which  avoided  the  religious  evils  of  civiliza- 
tion and  nomadism,  and  combined  their  virtues.  As  already 
observed,  the  "substance"  of  Hebrew  history  was  like  that 
of  other  nations;  but  its  "form"  opened  a  new  channel  for  the 
working  of  the  human  mind,  suggesting  thoughts  that  had  never 
before  flashed  through  the  brain  of  man.  The  imagination  of 
Israel's  prophets  took  fire,  and  blazed  up  in  a  great  spiritual 
flame  that  has  pierced  through  the  ages  and  illuminated  the 
history  of  the  world.  These  considerations,  together  with  the 
evidence  on  which  they  rest  and  their  bearing  on  present-day 
problems,  will  occupy  us  in  our  sociological  study  of  the  Bible. 


PREFATORY  xxxi 

The  book  is  practically  a  general  thesis  on  the  religious 
phase  of  civilization,  approaching  the  development  of  human 
society  from  the  standpoint  of  religious  interests.  It  aims  to 
show~that  the  Bible  may  be  taken  as  a  point  of  departure  for 
investigation  of  the  entire  process  of  social  evolution.  It  con- 
tends that  the  Bible  is  not  a  strange  thing,  let  down  into 
human  history  from  regions  lying  outside  the  pale  of  common 
interests.  It  views  the  Bible  as  an  organic  item  of  human  life, 
identified  in  its  nature  and  purpose  with  the  Reality  that 
underlies  the  history  of  the  world.  Accordingly,  the  book  is 
an  inductive  work,  based  not  only  on  a  direct  study  of  the 
Bible  itself,  but  on  the  examination  of  evidence  lying  outside 
the  field  usually  regarded  as  "Bible-study."  Sociological^ 
study  of  the  Bible  is  interested  not  only  in  the  process  by 
which  the  religion  of  the  Bible  was  born;  it  is  interested  in  the  \ 
social  circumstances  under  which  that  religion  propagated  \ 
itself  onward  in  ancient,  mediaeval,  and  modern  history;  and  ' 
it  is  also  concerned  with  the  social  aspect  under  which  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  exists  in  the  world  now.  The  facts  of 
religious  experience  are  best  appreciated  when  the  religious 
phase  of  civilization  is  viewed  as  one  process.  Setting  out  from 
this  principle,  we  cannot  limit  the  sociological  study  of  the 
Bible  to  the  age  that  produced  the  Bible.  Only  when  the 
Scriptures  are  viewed  in  the  light  of  general  history  can  a  study 
like  the  present  be  made  to  yield  the  largest  benefit. 

It  is  believed  that  the  book  will  be  chiefly  serviceable  in  two 
ways :  First,  by  cultivating  a  scientific  outlook  upon  the  social 
problem  in  ancient  history,  it  aims  to  encourage  a  similar 
attitude  with  reference  to  the  social  problem  now  pressing  upon 
us.  As  the  student  "observes  the  evolution  of  political  and 
social  life  in  Bible  times  and  sees  the  consequent  evolution  of 
moral  and  religious  ideals,  it  becomes  perfectly  natural  for  him 
to  employ  in  the  attempt  to  understand  the  life  of  his  own  day 
and  generation  those  very  principles  which  have  proved  to  be 


xxxii  PREFATORY 

fruitful  in  the  understanding  of  the  Bible.  He  is  thus  pre- 
pared in  spirit  to  make  a  positive  and  efficient  use  of  the  help 
which  social  science  and  history  furnish  in  the  analysis  and 
solution  of  our  own  moral  problems."1 

The  other  way  in  which  the  sociological  study  of  the  Bible 
should  be  of  service  lies  in  demonstrating  that  the  church 
organization  of  today  should  not  identify  itself  with  political  , 

)^J 

and  economic  programs.  The  present  awakening  of  religious 
people  to  the  social  side  of  religion  brings  with  it  a  real  peril. 
The  reaction  from  the  former  one-sided  emphasis  upon  "in- 
dividualism," and  "personal  wrongdoing,"  seems  to  be  taking 
us  over  toward  the  opposite  extreme.  More  and  more  we  hear 
it  said  that  the  church  machinery  should  put  itself  behind 
projects  of  social  reform — such  as  liquor  legislation,  child-labor 
laws,  unionism,  socialism,  etc.  If  the  church  should  lend  itself 
to  social  reform,  it  would  have  to  take  up  some  definite  position 
with  regard  to  politics  and  economics.  But  men  have  always 
differed  about  politics;  and  if  this  view  of  church  life  prevails, 
those  who  do  not  favor  the  particular  program  adopted  by 
their  church  cannot  support  the  organization;  and  this  would 
convert  the  church  into  a  political  party.  Our  chief  guide 
here  must  be  the  testimony  of  experience.  The  witness  of 
history  is  in  favor  of  the  complete  separation  of  Church  and 
State.  The  Church  may  be  compared  to  a  great  electric 
dynamo.  The  function  of  a  dynamo  is  to  "generate  energy," 
and  convert  "power"  into  a  useful  form.  Any  proposition 
that  seeks  to  turn  the  Church  away  from  its  function  as  a  \ 
generator  of  moral  and  spiritual  energy  looks  back  to  the  ; 
troublous  times  when  religion  was  a  political  issue. 

Two  books,  dealing  with  special  aspects  of  our  main  theme, 
have  been  published  by  the  author  of  this  work.  The  book 
now  issued  considers  the  problem  in  a  general  and  systematic 
way.  It  is  a  recasting  of  a  number  of  papers  which  have 

1  Editorial,  The  Biblical  World  (Chicago),  October,  1909,  p.  222. 


PREFATORY  xxxiii 

appeared  in  the  American  Journal  of  Sociology  at  various  times 
during  the  last  ten  years.  The  material  has  also  been  worked 
over  in  lecture  courses  at  the  Ohio  State  University;  the 
Plymouth  Congregational  Church,  Columbus,  Ohio;  the  First 
Congregational  Church,  Columbus,  Ohio;  the  Abraham 
Lincoln  Center,  Chicago,  Illinois;  and  in  a  private  correspond- 
ence course  given  to  students  in  the  United  States  and  other 
countries. 

The  material  has  been  examined,  in  one  form  or  another,  by 
several  persons  to  whom  the  writer  is  under  various  obliga- 
tions. If  any  of  these  are  not  included  in  the  list  that  follows, 
the  omission  is  unintentional:  Professor  William  F.  Bade,  of 
the  Pacific  Theological  Seminary;  Professor  George  A.  Barton, 
of  Bryn  Mawr  College;  Professor  George  R.  Berry,  of  Colgate 
University;  Professor  Walter  R.  Betteridge,  of  Rochester 
Theological  Seminary;  Professor  Charles  Rufus  Brown,  of  the 
Newton  Theological  Institution;  Professor  Shirley  J.  Case, 
of  the  University  of  Chicago;  Professor  Arthur  E.  Davies,  of 
the  Ohio  State  University;  Professor  Winfred  N.  Donovan,  of 
the  Newton  Theological  Institution ;  Professor  Henry  T.  Fowler, 
of  Brown  University;  Rev.  Allen  H.  Godbey,  Ph.D.,  St. 
Louis,  Mo. ;  Dr.  Thomas  W.  Goodspeed,  of  the  University 
of  Chicago;  Rev.  Edward  A.  Henry,  of  the  University  of 
Chicago;  Professor  Albert  E.  Hetherington,  of  Columbian 
College;  Dr.  Daniel  D.  Luckenbill,  of  the  University  of 
Chicago;  Professor  Shailer  Mathews,  of  the  University  of 
Chicago;  Professor  George  F.  Moore,  of  Harvard  University; 
Professor  Lewis  B.  Paton,  of  Hartford  Theological  Seminary; 
Professor  Ira  M.  Price,  of  the  University  of  Chicago;  Professor 
Edward  A.  Ross,  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin;  Professor 
Nathaniel  Schmidt,  of  Cornell  University;  Professor  Albion 
W.  Small,  of  the  University  of  Chicago;  Professor  Henry 
Preserved  Smith,  of  the  Meadville  Theological  School;  Pro- 
fessor John  M.  P.  Smith,  of  the  University  of  Chicago; 


xxxiv  PREFATORY 

Professor  Martin  Sprengling,  of  Northwestern  College ;  Profes- 
sor Crawford  H.  Toy,  of  Harvard  University;  Professor  Lester 
F.  Ward,  of  Brown  University. 

Special  acknowledgment  should  be  made  of  the  assistance 
given  by  Professor  Albion  W.  Small,  Head  of  the  Department 
of  Sociology  in  the  University  of  Chicago.  Professor  Small's 
interest  in  the  relation  between  sociology  and  religion  is  of  long 
standing.  The  problem  began  to  engage  his  attention  at  the 
time  when  the  names  of  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Stade,  and 
others  were  coming  into  prominence  in  the  application  of 
historical  criticism  to  the  Bible.  As  far  back  as  1894,  he  pub- 
lished the  following  statement  of  the  genetic  relationship 
between  sociology  and  criticism:  "Sociology  is  in  part  a 
product  of  the  critical  method  which  has  become  standard  in 
historical  investigation  since  Niebuhr's  reconstruction  of 
Roman  History."1  His  view  is,  that  the  historical  criticism  of 
the  Bible  must  inevitably  take  sociological  form.  In  1905  he 
said:  "Every  one  of  us  was  taught  to  believe  that  certain 
representatives  of  the  Hebrew  race  had  different  means  of 
communicating  with  God  from  those  that  are  available  today. 
We  consequently  accepted  a  version  of  Hebrew  history  which 
made  out  of  it  a  fantastic  tradition  that  only  began  to  take  on 
the  semblance  of  reality  within  the  recollection  of  living  men."2 
At  the  same  time,  in  referring  to  the  psychology  of  ethics  and 
religion,  he  wrote:  "Sociology  will  at  last  contribute  in  its 
own  way  to  these  subjects."3  Again,  writing  in  1910,  he  said: 
"I  do  not  think  that  social  science  can  ever  be  a  substitute  for 
religion.  It  is  getting  plainer  and  plainer,  however,  that  social 
science  ....  is  the  only  rational  body  for  religion."4  Pro- 
fessor Small's  view  of  this  problem  has  been  formed  as  the 

1  Small  and  Vincent,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Society  (New  York,  1894),  p.  45. 

*  Small,  General  Sociology  (Chicago,  1905),  p.  483. 

J  Ibid.,  p.  465. 

4  Small,  The  Meaning  of  Social  Science  (Chicago,  1910),  p.  275. 


PREFATORY  xxxv 

result  of  investigations  in  general  sociology,  and  not  through 
special  research  in  Hebrew  history.  We  refer  to  him  at  some 
length  here,  not  to  claim  his  support  for  any  of  the  special 
theses  found  in  this  book,  but  in  order  to  exhibit  the  grounds 
on  which  he  has  actively  promoted  the  undertaking  which  the 
book  represents.  His  aid  has  been  extended  in  ways  too 
numerous  for  mention  in  this  place. 

With  the  above  exception,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  consider- 
able embarrassment  to  single  out  other  names  from  the  fore- 
going list,  however  strong  the  temptation  may  be  to  do  so. 
In  each  case,  attention  and  criticism  have  been  given  as  a 
matter  of  professional  interest. 

While  the  book  is  identical  in  substance  with  the  papers 
published  in  the  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  its  present 
form  is  different  from  that  of  the  magazine  series. 

Quotations  from  the  Bible  in  this  work  follow  the  American 
Standard  Edition  of  the  Revised  Bible  (copyright  1901  by 
Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons),  which  is  used  by  permission.  A  few 
words  are  transliterated,  such  as  "Yahweh,"  "mishpat,"  etc.; 
and  other  slight  differences  of  usage  will  be  evident  upon 
comparison. 

MIDDLE  DIVINITY  HALL 
5855  ELLIS  AVENUE 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

AUTHOR'S  NOTE. — In  response  to  inquiries,  the  author  states  that  he  is 
not  at  present  an  instructor  in  any  educational  institution,  and  that  he  does 
not  speak  as  the  representative  of  any  organization. 


PART  I 
PRELIMINARY  VIEW  OF  THE  BIBLE  PROBLEM 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTION 

The  social  awakening. — No  demonstration  is  needed  to 
prove  that  the  world  is  in  the  midst  of  a  great  social  awaken- 
ing. The  pressure  of  the  "  social  problem  "  is  felt  hi  all  depart- 
ments of  life.  We  meet  it  hi  business,  in  politics,  hi  the 
home,  hi  the  school,  and  hi  the  church.  The  awakening  of  the 
church  to  this  issue  is  one  of  the  most  important  signs  of  the 
tunes.  The  social  side  of  religion  has  not  always  been  empha- 
sized as  it  is  now.  We  are  indeed  only  hi  the  beginning  of  a 
new  epoch  of  thought.1 

The  twofold  outlook  of  Bible  religion — individual  and  social. 
— The  present  awakening  to  the  social  problem  brings 
the  church  into  a  new  attitude  with  reference  to  the  Bible. 
In  earlier  tunes,  the  chief  emphasis  of  the  church  was  placed 
upon  the  salvation  of  the  individual;  while  the  Bible  itself  has 
not  only  a  personal  outlook,  but  a  social  appeal  as  well.  The 
importance  of  the  situation  disclosing  itself  hi  the  religious 
life  of  today  comes  before  us  with  great  power  as  we  study 
the  essential  nature  of  the  religion  around  which  the  church 
is  organized. 

1  The  point  of  chief  danger  in  the  present  social  awakening  of  the  church  is  not 
over-emphasis  upon  the  social  factor,  but  the  tendency  to  compromise  the  church  with 
programs  of  social  reform.  If  the  church  should  lend  itself  to  social  reform,  it  would 
be  forced,  necessarily,  to  take  up  some  definite  position  with  regard  to  politics  and 
economics.  But  since  men  have  always  differed  about  politics,  those  who  did  not 
favor  the  program  adopted  by  the  church  could  not  support  the  organization;  and  this 
would  convert  the  church  into  a  political  party.  Our  chief  guide  here  must  be  the 
testimony  of  experience.  The  witness  of  history  is  in  favor  of  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State.  The  church  may  be  compared  to  a  great  electric  dynamo,  whose  function  is 
to  convert  power  into  useful  forms.  Any  proposal  that  seeks  to  turn  the  church  away 
from  its  function  as  a  moral  and  spiritual  dynamo  looks  back  toward  the  troublous 
times  when  Church  and  State  were  connected,  and  religious  questions  were  political 
issues. 

3 


4  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  personal,  or  private,  appeal  of  the  Bible  religion  is 
so  familiar  that  we  need  not  dwell  on  it  in  this  connection: 
"Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
thoughts;  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have 
mercy  upon  him;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly 
pardon"  (Is.  55:7).  The  principle  thus  declared  by  the 
prophet  is  tested  by  the  psalmist:  "My  sin  I  made  known  to 
thee;  and  mine  iniquity  I  did  not  hide.  I  said,  I  will  confess 
my  transgression  to  the  Lord.  Then  thou  forgavest  mine 
iniquity  and  my  sin.  Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is 
forgiven;  whose  sin  is  covered"  (Ps.  32:5,  i).  In  dependence 
upon  the  Old  Testament,  the  same  principle  is  dramatized  in 
the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  in  which  the  wicked  for- 
sakes his  way,  returns  to  his  father,  and  is  forgiven  (Luke 
15:1 1-32).  God  is  not  only  regarded  as  demanding  righteous- 
ness and  forgiving  iniquity:  he  is  also  viewed  as  actively  in 
partnership  with  man  in  the  struggle  against  evil:  "Create  in 
me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me" 
(Ps.  51:10). 

On  the  other  hand,  the  religion  around  which  the  church 
of  today  is  organized  makes  just  as  positive  an  appeal  to  the 
social,  or  public,  interest.  A  brief  study  makes  the  fact  per- 
fectly clear.  Thus,  in  contrast  with  passages  that  have  a 
distinctly  individual  bearing,  we  read,  "Let  justice  roll  down 
like  waters"  (Amos  5:24);  "Rulers  shall  govern  in  justice" 
(Isa.  32:1);  "Hear,  I  pray  you,  ye  heads  of  Jacob  and  rulers 
of  the  house  of  Israel,  is  it  not  for  you  to  know  justice?" 
(Mic.  3:1). 

It  may  be  said  that  these  passages  merely  urge  personal 
uprightness  on  the  part  of  government  officials  in  the  same 
way  that  we  now  demand  good  men  and  righteous  conduct 
in  public  office.  But  the  reply  to  this  is,  that  the  Hebrew 
term  translated  "justice"  will  not  bear  a  merely  personal 
interpretation.  This  term  is  one  of  the  great,  outstanding 


INTRODUCTION  5 

words  of  the  Bible;  and  it  conveys  a  wealth  of  meaning  that 
is  not  apparent  on  the  surface.  In  the  passages  quoted  above, 
the  King  James  Version  renders  "judgment,"  while  the  Ameri- 
can Revised  Version  translates  "justice."  We  find  the  Hebrew 
term  itself  spelled  in  English  letters  in  Gen.  14:7,  as  follows: 
M-i-s-H-p-A-T.1  The  word  mishpat  occurs  in  the  Bible  in  a 
great  variety  of  connections,  and  is  variously  translated  ac- 
cording to  the  shade  of  meaning.  It  is  rendered  not  only  by 
the  words  "justice"  and  "judgment,"  but  also  by  "law," 
"legal  right,"  "custom,"  "manner,"  "ordering,"  etc.  It 
points  to  the  social  arrangements,  or  institutions,  that  bind 
people  together  in  groups  like  the  family,  the  clan,  and  the 
nation. 

Accordingly,  the  command  which  is  translated,  "Let 
justice  roll  down  like  waters,"  means,  hi  other  words,  "Let 
social  arrangements  be  just.  Let  the  government  uphold  the 
good  laws  and  institutions  of  the  forefathers."  It  is,  indeed, 
a  matter  of  abundant  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  very  largely 
concerned  with  questions  that  pertain  to  the  organization  of 
the  community,  and  which  therefore  stand  outside  the  limits 
of  personal  and  private  affairs. 

It  is  clear  that  earlier  generations  neglected  a  large  and  vital 
aspect  of  the  Bible  and  its  religion.  We  cannot  pause  here  to 
discuss  the  reason  for  this  fact.  The  shifting  of  attention 
from  the  individual  to  the  social  aspect  of  religion  is  ably 
described  in  the  following  words: 

Unquestionably  the  general  conception  entertained  among  our 
New  England  progenitors  in  the  religious  life  was  that  of  Christianity 
as  an  agency  for  individual  rescue  and  salvation;  and  of  the  Church 
as  the  divinely  appointed  place  of  ingathering  for  souls  brought  home 
from  a  lost  and  ruined  world. 

But  just  as  plainly  there  has  more  recently  risen  in  many  minds 
the  conception  of  Christianity  as  the  savior  of  society,  and  of  the 

"In  this  passage,  En-mishpat  means  "Fountain  of  justice,"  or  "Fountain  of 
judgment." 


6  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Church  as  one  instrumentality  among  others  in  an  enterprise  for  the 
general  redemption  of  humanity.  The  thought  ranges  over  a  wide 
scale  of  development  in  different  entertainers  of  the  comparatively 
new  conception.  There  are  those  who,  while  believing  that  the  Gospel's 
hope  lies  in  the  regeneration  of  individual  souls,  recognize,  nevertheless, 
the  mighty  influence  of  circumstances  and  environment  in  making  this 

individual    redemption   more   or   less   probable To   this   end, 

they  rejoice  in  whatever  improves  the  physical  and  social  conditions 

of  the  community Others,  who  have  travelled  farther  in  this 

direction,  seem  to  fasten  about  all  hope  for  the  Gospel's  greater  progress 
on  a  preliminary  better  adjustment  of  society;  on  better  relationships 
between  capital  and  labor;  on  a  more  equal  division  of  property;  on 
improved  habits  of  living  and  increased  facilities  for  education,  holidays, 

and  enjoyment There  is,  as  has  been  said,  a  considerable  range 

of  diversity  in  these  positions.  But  the  conception  of  the  relationship 
of  the  Gospel  to  society,  hitherto  insufficiently  recognized,  has  unques- 
tionably got  a  hold  on  men's  minds,  and  to  some  extent  has  affected  and 
modified  the  character  of  preaching  in  almost  all  pulpits.1 

The  change  of  emphasis  thus  described  is  due,  primarily, 
not  to  intellectual  or  spiritual  or  theoretical  causes,  but  to  the 
x  increasing  pressure  of  the  social  problem.  And  since  the\ 
religion  of  the  Bible  has  the  social  character  just  noted,  the  \ 
social  awakening  of  the  church  brings  it  into  a  new  attitude  J 
with  reference  to  the  Bible.  The  conditions  of  religious  life 
and  thought  are  now  in  process  of  rapid  change;  and  there  is 
growing  interest  in  Bible-study  from  the  ethical  and  social 
standpoints.  The  new  view  of  the  Bible,  which  prevails  at 
all  the  great  centers  of  learning,  is  in  harmony  with  the  present 
social  awakening  in  the  religious  world;  whereas  the  older, 
traditional  view  of  the  Bible  agrees  equally  with  the  former, 
one-sided  emphasis  upon  individualism.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  the  new  scholarship  is  a  mere  unsanctified  cam- 
paign to  discredit  the  Bible  by  pointing  out  where  one  passage 
fails  to  agree  with  another. 

The  negative  side  of  the  new  scholarship  is  merely  that 

•Walker,  Religious  Life  of  New  England  (Boston,  1897),  pp.  180-82. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

which  always  goes  along  with  a  period  of  change;  but  on  its 
positive  and  constructive  side,  it  is  working  out  a  body  of 
doctrine  which  gives  admirable  expression  to  the  practical 
interests  and  strivings  of  the  present  age.  We  stand  at  the 
confluence  of  two  great  movements — the  social  awakening  and 
the  modern  scientific  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  These  move- 
ments appear  to  be  foreign  to  each  other;  'yet  they  have  a 
logical  relation  and  meaning  which  will  come  into  view  as  our 
study  proceeds. 

Bible  religion  identifies  God  with  the  principle  of  righteous- 
ness.— It  is  clear  that  whether  we  approach  the  Bible  religion 
from  the  social  or  from  the  individual  point  of  view,  it  connects 
God  with  the  demands  of  morality.  The  supreme,  controlling 
purpose  of  the  Bible  is  very  simple  and  practical.  For  it 
revolves  around  the  purpose  and  plan  of  redemption,  or  salva- 
tion, from  evil.  The  individual  is  to  be  redeemed  from  his 
own  sin,  while  the  world  is  to  be  redeemed  from  injustice. 

Any  interpretation  of  the  Bible  that  fails  to  put  heavy 
stress  upon  the  moral  aspect  of  its  religion  is  bound  to  be 
one-sided  and  insufficient.  The  Bible  is  pre-eminently  ethical. 
It  does  not  make  the  slightest  effort  to  "prove"  the  existence 
of  God.  It  takes  God  for  granted.  Nowhere  hi  the  Bible  is 
there  to  be  found  a  scientific  or  philosophical  argument  for  the 
existence  of  God.  Nowhere  in  the  Bible  do  we  find  the  means 
of  demonstrating  the  fact  of  a  future  life  beyond  the  grave. 
The  Bible  makes  God  and  immortality  the  subjects  of  faith; 
but  it  makes  public  and  private  righteousness  matters  of  prac- 
tice^ Therefore  the  Bible  is  a  practical  book;  and  its  religion 
is  a  practical  religion. 

Bible  religion  presents  God  as  the  Leading  Actor  in  a  divine 
drama  of  redemption. — "Men  shall  speak  of  the  might  of  thy 
terrible  acts"  (Ps.  145:6).  Not  only  does  the  Bible  identify 
God  with  the  principle  of  morality;  but  it  goes  farther  than 
this.  The  distinction  of  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 


8  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

mere  identification  of  God  with  the  principle  of  righteousness. 
The  one  great,  outstanding  peculiarity  of  the  Bible  and  its 
religion  is  to  be  found  in  the  presentation  of  God  as  the  Lead- 
ing Actor  of  a  long  story,  or  drama,  hi  which  mankind  is 
redeemed  from  evil.     Many  of  the  gods  of  antiquity  wereV 
believed  by  their  worshipers  to  be  patrons  of  righteousness,  j 
Yet  none  of  the  religions  of  the  ancient  world,  except  that  of  U 
the  Bible,  have  survived  in  modern  civilization. 

It  is  here  that  the  essential  feature  of  the  Bible  religion 
is  found.  This  religion  has  made  its  triumphant  way  in  the 
world,  not  upon  the  oasis  of  the  creatorhood  of  God,  or  the 
doctrine  of  monotheism,  or  any  other  abstract  notion  whatso- 
ever. It  has  gone  from  victory  to  victory  on  the  basis  of  the 
moral  saviorhood  of  God,  and  nothing  else.  All  other  ideas 
about  God  that  we  find  in  the  Bible  are  present  in  other  ancient 
religions  and  Bibles.  But  no  other  ancient  religion  brings 
before  us  the  picture  of  a  god  as  the  leading  figure  in  a  long, 
consistent  drama,  or  story,  in  which  the  central  theme  is  the 
redemption  of  the  human  race  from  evil.  Herein  the  Bible 
stands  alone  in  solitary  and  unapproachable  majesty  amid  the 
literature  of  the  ancient  world.  Herein  the  religion  of  the 
Hebrew  nation  has  no  parallel  among  the  cults  of  antiquity. 
Everything  but  this  feature  (and  it  is  indeed  a  "feature")  is 
present  in  the  so-called  "heathen"  religions.  Thus  the 
inaugural  prayer  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  addressed  to  the  god 
Marduk,  is  full  of  sentiments  that  are  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible: 

O  Eternal  Ruler!  Lord  of  the  Universe!  Grant  that  the  name  of 
the  king  whom  thou  lovest,  whose  name  thou  hast  mentioned,  may 
flourish  as  seems  good  to  thee.  Guide  him  on  the  right  path.  I  am 
the  ruler  who  obeys  thee,  the  creation  of  thy  hand.  It  is  thou  who  hast 
created  me,  and  thou  hast  entrusted  to  me  sovereignty  over  mankind. 
According  to  thy  mercy,  O  lord,  which  thou  bestowest  upon  all,  cause 
me  to  love  thy  supreme  rule.  Implant  the  fear  of  thy  divinity  in  my 


INTRODUCTION  9 

heart.     Grant  to  me  whatsoever  may  seem  good  before  thee,  since  it 
is  thou  that  dost  control  my  life.1 

As  Jastrow  observes,  "one  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  by  the; 
high  sense  of  the  importance  of  his  station  with  which  the 
king  is  inspired.  Sovereignty  is  not  a  right  that  he  can  claim — 
it  is  a  trust  granted  to  him  by  Marduk.  He  holds  his  great 
office  not  for  purposes  of  self-glorification,  but  for  the  benefit 
of  his  subjects.  In  profound  humility  he  confesses  that  what 
he  has  he  owes  entirely  to  Marduk.  He  asks  to  be  guided  so 
that  he  may  follow  the  path  of  righteousness.  Neither  riches 
nor  power  constitute  his  ambition,  but  to  have  the  fear  of  his 
lord  in  his  heart."  Thjsjgxample  is  one  of  many  that  occur 
all  through  ancient  civilization.  We  find  another  instance  in 
a  remarkable  Egyptian  hymn  to  the  god  Aton: 

How  manifold  are  all  thy  works!  They  are  hidden  from  before  us,  O 
thou  sole  god,  whose  powers  no  other  possesseth.  Thou  didst  create  the 
earth  according  to  thy  desire.  While  thou  wast  alone:  Men,  all  cattle 
large  and  small,  all  that  are  upon  the  earth,  that  go  about  upon  their 
feet;  all  that  are  on  high,  that  fly  with  their  wings.  The  countries  of 
Syria  and  Nubia,  the  land  of  Egypt;  thou  settest  every  man  in  his  place, 
thou  suppliest  their  necessities.  Every  one  has  his  possessions,  and  his 
days  are  reckoned.  Their  tongues  are  divers  in  speech,  their  forms  like- 
wise and  their  skins,  for  thou  divider,  hast  divided  the  peoples.3 

These  illustrations  prove  that  in  the  bare  ideas  of  crea- 
tive^ power,  of  righteousness,  and  of  sovereignty,  we  find 
nothingpeculiarto  the  Godof  theBible.  It  has  often  been 
said  that  whilethe  other  nations  of  antiquity  worshiped 
"false"  gods,  the  Hebrew  nation  served  the  "true"  God,  and 
that  therefore  the  Hebrew  religion  has  lived  while  the  others 
have  died.  But  this  theory  of  the  case  does  not  fit  the  situa- 
tion that  unrolls  before  us  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews.  For 
the  Bible  religion  puts  the  moral  saviorhood  of  God  in  the 

'Jastrow,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  (Boston,  1898),  pp.  296-99.     Cf. 
Goodspeed,  History  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  (New  York,  1006),  p.  348. 
2  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt  (New  York,  1905),  pp.  373,  374. 


io  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

foreground,  and  focuses  our  attention  upon  that;  while  the 
other  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  are,  so  to  speak,  inci- 
dental and  secondary.  It  is  no  derogation  of  the  Bible  that 
we  find  the  ethical  impulse  widely  present  in  the  non-Hebrew 
religions.  It  is  rather  to  the  credit  of  humanity  that  the 
Hebrews  had  no  monopoly  of  the  moral  principle;  while  the 
glory  of  the  Bible  resides  in  just  this  fact,  that  it  brings  God 
into  peculiar,  dramatic  connection  with  the  moral  strivings 
that  are  common  to  all  mankind.  It  is  not  for  what  God  is 
in  the  abstract  that  men  worship  him  in  connection  with  the 
Bible  religion,  but  for  what  he  does  in  the  promotion  of  justice 
and  righteousness.  If  men  worshiped  him  simply  for  his 
"attributes,"  that  would  be  to  put  religion  upon  a  purely 
intellectual  basis;  and  no  religion  can  long  survive  on  such  a 
foundation.  The  Bible  religion  makes  its  way  into  the  lives 
of  men  by  its  appeal  to  the  feelings,  and  not  by  arguments 
addressed  to  the  intellect.1 

The  religion  of  the  Redeeming  God  is  common  to  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments. — In  its  Old  Testament  form,  the  religion ; 
of  redemption  was  kept  alive  by  Jewish  patriotism  and  race- 
pride.  It  was  interpreted  to  the  Jewish  people  through  the 
medium  of  their  national  interests.  But  the  same  considera- 
tion that  made  this  religion  vital  and  concrete  to  a  person  of 
Jewish  blood,  made  it  unreal  and  far  away  to  the  gentile 
world.  In  the  eyes  of  outsiders,  the  identification  of  God  with 
morality  was  a  philosophical  abstraction,  without  life  or 
meaning.  The  gentile  could  not  throw  aside  his  race,  and 
become  a  Jew,  any  more  than  one  species  of  animal  can  trans- 
form itself  into  another.  Thus  the  Old  Testament  form  of 

'Witness  the  downfall  of  the  "New  England  theology,"  which  obscured  the 
Bible  religion  with  as  much  rationalism  as  was  ever  found  in  the  anti-religious  thinkers. 
See  Foster,  Genetic  History  of  the  New  England  Theology  (Chicago,  1907).  As  Profes- 
sor W.  N.  Clarke  well  says,  "Theology  must  discuss  God  in  metaphysical  light, 
but  it  is  important  to  know  that  not  in  such  discussing  did  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  God  originate." — The  Christian  Doctrine  of  God  (New  York,  1909),  p.  23. 


INTRODUCTION  n 

Bible  religion  was  confined  within  the  limits  of  nationality  and 
race.  A  great  social  barrier  stood  between  Judaism  and  the 
outside  world. 

In  a  later  part  of  our  study  we  shall  consider  the  sociological 
aspects  of  the  relation  between  Judaism  and  Christianity. 
Here  we  need  to  do  little  more  than  emphasize  that  the  religion 
of  the  Redeeming  God  is  common  to  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. To  deny  this,  would  be  to  cut  the  ground  from  under 
the  feet  of  Christianity.  The  New  Testament  signifies  not  so 
much  a  wholly  new  religion  as  a  reinterpretation  of  religion  in 
such  a  way  as  to  give  its  terms  a  deeper  and  richer  meaning. 
The  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  gave  their  message  in 
"divers  portions  and  divers  ways."  But  the  social  barrier 
between  Judaism  and  the  gentile  world  ("the  middle  wall  of 
partition")  was  at  last  broken  down  by  the  work  of  Jesus  and 
the  preaching  of  Paul.  The  religion  of  redemption  did  not 
begin  to  spread  abroad  in  the  world  until  the  Old  Testament 
evolution  was  brought  to  a  focus,  or  condensed^m  the  life  of 
Jesus,  who  incarnated  the  redemptive  idea  in  his  own  person. 
These  facts  may  be  spoken  of  here  by  way  of  preliminary; 
but  a  fuller  study  along  the  indicated  line  of  approach  may  not 
be  made  until  we  have  considered  the  sociological  presupposi- 
tions of  the  general  problem. 

Modern  scientific  study  of  the  Bible  comes  to  a  focus  on 
the  moral  character  of  Bible  religion. — Since  the  Bible  puts 
the  principle  of  righteousness  into  the  foreground,  all  Bible- 
study  necessarily  gravitates  around  this  fact  and  becomes 
adjusted  to  it.  However  much  the  new,  scientific  school  of 
Bible  interpretation  may  seem  to  be  dealing  with  matters  of 
another  kind,  its  fundamental  preoccupation  is  with  the  great 
moral  problem  of  history.  The  chief  reason  why  the  new 
scholarship  has  been  spoken  against  in  some  quarters  is  because 
it  has  not  been  understood. 

Those  who  condemn  the  new  view  are  generally  beside  the 


12  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

main  issues.  A  case  in  point  is  that  of  Professor  James  Orr, 
whose  recent  widely  heralded  book,  The  Problem  of  the  Old 
Testament,  treats  the  modern  discussion  about  the  Bible  as 
a  war  between  " supernaturalism "  and  "naturalism."  But 
this  is  to  put  the  whole  subject  on  a  purely  metaphysical 
plane.  For  nobody  has  ever  yet  drawn  the  line  between 
these  terms;  and  there  appears  to  be  no  prospect  that 
anybody  ever  will.  Professor  Orr  would  be  closer  to  the 
issues  if  he  perceived  that  the  new  method  of  Bible  interpre- 
tation can  be  neither  "naturalistic"  nor  "supernaturalistic," 
but  simply  scientific.1 

How  did  the  Bible  religion  come  into  the  world? — This  is 
e  real  issue  at  the  heart  of  modern  scientific  Bible-study. 
Until  we  learn  to  look  squarely  at  this  question,  we  shall  not 
make  much  progress  in  further  understanding  of  the  Bible. 
The  older  school,  of  course,  finds  no  problem  here.  The  ready 
answer  of  Professor  Orr  and  the  traditionalists  is,  that  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  came  into  this  world,  and  entered  the 
stream  of  human  history,  by  "the  will  of  God."  We  admit 
that  this  answer  is  good  and  sufficient  from  the  standpoints  of 
theology  and  religious  faith;  but  it  explains  nothing  from  the 
standpoint  of  science.  On  the  other  hand,  the  modern  school 
tells  us  that  the  religion  of  the  Bible  came  into  the  world 
through  "a  process  of  evolution."  Thus,  Kuenen  writes,  "It 
is  the  supposition  of  a  natural  development  alone  which 
accounts  for  all  the  phenomena."2  But  this,  again,  is  really 
no  scientific  explanation,  because  the  terms  "development" 

1  See  Orr,  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament  (New  York,  1906),  chap,  i  and  passim. 
Also,  his  Bible  under  Trial  (New  York,  1907),  passim.    An  older,  but  in  some  respects 
more  satisfactory,  treatment  of  the  question  is  that  of  Robertson,  The  Early  Religion 
of  Israel  (New  York,  1892).     See  also  Green,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  (New 
York,  1895),  pp.  157,  164,  165,  177.     Professor  Orr's  work  on  the  Old  Testament  is 
considered  by  the  present  writer  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology  (April,  1908), 
pp.  241-49. 

2  Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel  (London,  1877),  p.  585;    Religion  of 
Israel  (London,  1874),  I,  n. 


INTRODUCTION  13 

and  "evolution"  are  indefinite,  and  may  be  made  to  cover  as 
much  dogmatism  as  the  phrase  "the  will  of  God." 

The  problemj)efore  scientific  students  of  the  Bible  is  to 
find  out  and  state  the  conditions  under  which  this  great  but 
simple  religion  became  the  property  of  mankind.  The  best 
point  of  approach  to  this  problem  is  afforded  by  the  dramatic 
structure  of  the  Bible.  Explain  the  rise  of  the  story  of  redemp- 
tion from  evil,  and  you  "explain"  the  Bible,  so  far  as  it  lends 
itself  to  scientific  treatment.  It  should  be  emphasized  in  this 
connection  that  scientific  research  merely  undertakes  to  dis- 
cover facts,  and  to  find  out  the  relations  between  facts.  It)) 
seeks  to  explain  one  fact  in  terms  of  some  simpler  fact.  But 
it  does  not  profess  to  turn  facts  inside  out  and  explain  them  in 
a  metaphysical,  or  absolute,  sense.  In  other  words,  even  if  a 
given  collection  of  facts  be  explained  from  the  scientific  point 
of  view,  the  facts  themselves,  in  last  analysis,  will  still  have 
a  quality  of  mystery  which  eludes  the  scientific  investigator. 
Many  religious  people  have  been  alarmed  by  scientific  discus- 
sion because  they  have  not  realized  the  limitations  of  science. 
On  the  other  hand,  many  scientific  investigators  in  the  past 
have  proceeded  as  if  they  were  explaining  the  metaphysical 
essence  of  the  universe  when  they  were  merely  setting  facts 
in  order.  But  we  have  now  entered  a  stage  of  intellectual 
progress  in  which  the  shortsightedness  on  both  sides  is  being 
corrected  by  a  wider  vision. 

Scientific  study  of  the  Bible  carries  us  into  the  domain  of 
sociology. — We  have  seen  that  the  Bible  raises  the  subject  of 
social  institutions  by  its  emphasis  upon  "justice,"  or  "mishpat." 
As  a  matter  of  fact  all  the  great  moral  struggles  and  questions  V 
in  human  history  have  derived  their  controlling  impulses  from  )) 
social  relationships.    And  since  moral  questions  have  this  col-4/ 
lective,  or  social,  character,  it  follows  that  the  Bible  (being 
a  moral  fact  above  everything  else)  lends  itself  to  sociological 
treatment.     But  what  do  we  mean  by  the  term  "sociology"  ? 


14  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Sociology  fixes  attention  upon  the  "social  group." — We  are 
not  usually  conscious  of  society  as  a  fact  in  our  lives.  We 
go  through  the  round  of  daily  duties  and  experiences;  and  all 
the  time  we  think  of  life  in  terms  of  private,  personal,  indi- 
vidual concerns.  We  do  not  deny  that  we  belong  to  the  nation, 
the  state,  the  county,  the  city,  or  the  village;  but  we  accept 
the  fact  of  social  organization  without  fully  realizing  how  it 
shapes  and  constrains  our  private  lives.  We  concede  readily 
enough  that  people  fall  into  social  groups;  but  then  we  ask 
"What  of  it?"  We  take  society  for  granted,  and  then  act  as 
if  we  are  entitled  to  ignore  it,  just  as  we  ignore  the  air  we 
breathe.  The  fact  is,  we  are  so  thoroughly  social  that  we  dis- 
count the  existence  of  society.  We  conform  to  social  standards 
without  pausing  to  estimate  the  full  meaning  of  the  standards 
themselves;  and  the  moment  we  take  the  social  mechanism, 
or  group,  as  a  definite  object  of  attention,  we  at  once  feel  that 
we  are  moving  outside  the  common  lines  of  thought.  "The 
idea  of  the  group  as  a  means  of  interpretation,"  writes  Presi- 
dent George  E.  Vincent,  "is  emerging  more  clearly.  Society 
is  too  vague  and  abstract  a  concept.  It  is  useful  for  symbolic 
purposes  and  for  generalized  description,  but  to  have  any 
vividness  of  meaning  it  must  be  translated  into  more  concrete 
terms."1  Thus  it  is  that  we  find  sociologists  today  shaping 
their  discussions  less  in  terms  of  "society"  and  more  in  terms 
of  "groups." 

A  good  illustration  of  the  group  idea  from  a  negative  stand- 
point is  found  in  the  general  disposition  of  Greek  history.  The 
Greeks  never  succeeded  in  forming  a  national  social  organiza- 
tion. Consequently,  their  history  lacks  the  dramatic  interest 
attaching  to  the  fact  of  unity.  The  case  is  well  stated  by 
Professor  Bury,  as  follows  (italics  ours) : 

To  write  the  history  of  Greece  at  almost  any  period  without  dissipat- 
ing the  interest  is  a  task  of  immense  difficulty,  as  any  one  knows  who 

1  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  January,  1911,  p.  469. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

has  tried,  because  there  is  no  constant  unity  or  fixed  center  to  which 
the  actions  and  aims  of  the  numerous  states  can  be  subordinated  or 
related.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  Persian  invasion,  one  of  the  few  occa- 
sions on  which  most  of  the  Greek  cities  were  affected  by  a  common 
interest,  though  acting  in  various  ways  and  from  various  motives,  it 
facilitated  the  task  of  the  narrator  to  polarize  the  events  of  the  cam- 
paigns by  following  the  camp  of  the  invader  and  describing  them  as  a 
part  of  Persian  history,  though  with  Hellenic  sympathy.1 

In  other  words,  the  Greeks  were  never  organized  into  a  r 
single  social  group,  as  the  Romans  or  the  Hebrews  were. 
Consequently,  it  is  more  difficult  to  envisage  Greek  history 
than  it  is  to  see  the  outlines  of  Roman  or  Hebrew  history. 
The  original  social  mechanism  of  the  ancient  Greeks  consisted 
of  independent  clan  groups  whose  derivation  went  back  to  the 
nomadic  period,  and  whose  development  worked  out  in  the 
construction  of  small  "city-states,"  such  as  Athens  and  Sparta. 
But  these  local  groups  never  achieved  any  real,  national  unity. 

Now,  it  is  in  relation  to  this  "group  idea"  that  our  socio- 
logical study  of  the  Bible  takes  form.  The  entire  modern 
discussion  and  excitement  about  the  Bible  comes  to  an  issue 
around  the  following  simple  question :  How  did  the  social  group 
known  as  "the  Hebrew  nation"  come  into  existence?  In  search- 
ing for  the  answer  to  this  question  we  unexpectedly  get  light 
by  the  way  upon  the  central  problem  of  the  Bible.  We  shall 
see  that  the  origin  of  Bible  religion  can  be  treated  to  best  effect 
in  terms  of  sociology.  This  method  of  approach  to  the  Bible 
is  a  logical  application  of  modern  results  in  historical  and  social 
science;  and  it  opens  before  us  the  chapters  of  an  intensely 
absorbing  story. 

We  are  about  to  enter  a  strange  land.  Like  all  new  terri- 
tory, it  is  a  region  full  of  surprises  and  paradoxes.  The 
exploration  of  it  is  not  only  interesting,  but  rewarding  in  ways 
of  which  one  little  dreams  when  setting  out  on  the  journey. 
And  when  at  last  we  come  back  to  modern  civilization,  we 

1  Bury,  The  Ancient  Greek  Historians  (New  York,  1909),  pp.  22,  23. 


16  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

shall  have  learned  that  while  the  Bible  seems  to  be  only  an 
ancient  book,  it  is  really  full  of  modern  interest.  We  shall 
find  that  Bible-study  is  no  mere  delving  into  the  dust  of  an- 
tiquity, but  the  cultivation  of  living  questions  of  human  life. 
As  the  student  "observes  the  evolution  of  political  and  social 
life  in  Bible  times  and  sees  the  consequent  evolution  of  moral 
and  religious  ideals,  it  becomes  perfectly  natural  for  him  to 
employ  in  the  attempt  to  understand  the  life  of  his  own.  day 
and  generation  those  very  principles  which  have  proved  to  be 
fruitful  in  the  understanding  of  the  Bible.  He  is  thus  pre- 
pared in  spirit  to  make  a  positive  and  efficient  use  of  the  help 
which  social  science  and  history  furnish  in  the  analysis  and 
solution  of  our  own  moral  problems."1 

1  Editorial,  Biblical  World  (Chicago),  October,  1909. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  HEBREW  NATION 

How  did  the  social  group  known  as  "the  Hebrew  nation" 
come  into  existence? — This  question  resolves  the  study  of 
the  Bible  into  sociological  terms.  The  subject,  of  course, 
lends  itself  to  other  forms  of  expression;  but,  for  present 
purposes,  the  Bible  is  a  matter  of  sociology.  We  want  to 
know,  if  possible,  just  how  the  social  mechanism  called  "the 
Hebrew  nation"  originated.  Two  answers  to  this  question 
have  been  given;  and  the  contrast  between  them  produces 
a  very  deep  impression. 

The  traditional  view. — According  to  the  more  familiar  view, 
the  nation  consisted  of  twelve  tribes  that  were  suddenly 
welded  into  a  mighty  social  organism  at  Mount  Sinai,  in  the 
desert  of  Arabia.  The  father  of  these  clans,  or  tribes,  was 
an  Aramean  patriarch,  or  sheikh,  known  as  "Jacob-Israel."1 
The  nation  which  was  here  created  was  given  a  very  elaborate, 
written  constitution.  According  to  this  constitution,  the 
people  as  a  whole  were  to  conduct  religious  services  at  one 
central  meeting  house,  or  church  building.  This  was  called 
"The  Tent  of  Meeting,"  and  was  otherwise  known  as  "The 
Tabernacle  of  Yahweh."2  It  was  a  portable  sanctuary,  to 
be  carried  about  in  the  desert.  It  contained  the  one  altar 
where  sacrifices  might  legally  be  offered.  It  was  the  one 
church  building  where  the  services  of  religion  might  proceed. 
The  Tent  of  Meeting  was  a  virtual  proclamation  that  here, 
in  the  wilderness  of  Arabia,  a  new  social  group  had  come 
into  existence.  The  desert  sanctuary  was  thus  the  central 

J"A  wandering  Aramean  was  my  father"  (Deut.  26:5).  See  Am.  Revised, 
margin.  The  Hebrew  is  "Aramean,"  not  "Syrian." 

2  See  footnote  in  "Prefatory"  (p.  xiii)  for  discussion  of  the  name  "Yahweh." 

17 


i8  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

symbol  of  the  nation's  political  integrity.  It  was  the  sign 
that  the  twelve  tribes  no  longer  existed  separately,  but  were 
merged  into  a  single  corporation.  A  good  point  of  departure 
for  sociological  study  of  the  Bible  is,  therefore,  the  law  of  the 
central  sanctuary  as  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 
The  law  reads  as  follows  (italics  ours) : 

When  ye  go  over  the  Jordan,  and  dwell  in  the  land  which  Yahweh 
your  god  causeth  you  to  inherit,  and  he  giveth  you  rest  from  all  your 
enemies  round  about,  so  that  ye  dwell  in  safety;  then  it  shall  come  to 
pass  that  to  the  place  which  Yahweh  your  god  shall  choose  to  cause  his 
name  to  dwell  there,  thither  shall  ye  bring  all  that  I  command  you — 
your  burnt  offerings,  and  your  sacrifices,  your  tithes,  and  the  heave 
offering  of  your  hand,  and  all  your  choice  vows  which  ye  vow  unto 

Yahweh Take  heed  to  thyself  that  thou  offer  not  thy  burnt  offerings 

in  every  place  that  thou  seest;  but  in  the  place  which  Yahweh  shall  choose 
in  one  of  thy  tribes,  there  thou  shalt  offer  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  there 
thou  shalt  do  all  that  I  command  thee  (Deut.  12:10-14). 

Leaving  the  matter  of  the  one,  central  sanctuary  for  a 
moment,  we  turn  to  another  feature  of  the  traditional  view. 
According  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  the  Hebrew  nation  crossed 
the  River  Jordan  and  threw  its  great,  united  army  upon  the 
Amorites,  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  completely  sweeping 
them  away.  This  development  is  chiefly  set  forth  by  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  in  which  various  passages  detail  the  situation 
as  follows  (italics  ours) : 

Joshua  smote  all  the  land,  the  hill-country,  and  the  south,  and  the 
lowland,  and  the  slopes,  and  all  their  kings,  He  left  none  remaining; 
and  he  utterly  destroyed  all  that  breathed,  as  Yahweh,  the  god  of  Israel, 
commanded  (Josh.  10:40). 

So  Joshua  took  all  that  land,  the  hill-country,  and  all  the  south, 
and  all  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  the  lowland,  and  the  Arabah,  and  the 
hill-country  of  Israel,  and  the  lowland  of  the  same;  from  Mount  Halak, 
that  goeth  up  to  Seir,  even  unto  Baal-gad  in  the  valley  of  Lebanon 
under  Mount  Hermon.  And  all  their  kings  he  took  and  smote  them,  and 
put  them  to  death.  Joshua  made  war  a  long  time  with  all  those  kings. 
There  was  not  a  city  that  made  peace  with  the  children  of  Israel,  save 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  HEBREW  NATION  19 

the  Hivites,  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeon.  They  took  all  in  battle 

So  Joshua  took  the  whole  land,  according  to  all  that  Yahweh  spake 
unto  Moses.  And  Joshua  gave  it  for  an  inheritance  unto  Israel,  accord- 
ing to  their  divisions  by  their  tribes.  And  the  land  had  rest  from  war 
(Josh.  11:16-19,  23). 

So  Yahweh  gave  unto  Israel  all  the  land  which  he  sware  to  give 
unto  their  fathers.  And  they  possessed  it  and  dwelt  therein.  And 
Yahweh  gave  them  rest  round  about,  according  to  all  that  he  sware  unto 
their  fathers.  And  there  stood  not  a  man  of  all  their  enemies  before  them 
....  (Josh.  21:43-44). 

Thus  saith  Yahweh  ....  I  brought  you  into  the  land  of  the 
Amorites,  that  dwelt  beyond  the  Jordan;  and  they  fought  with  you. 
....  And  ye  possessed  their  land;  and  I  extirpated  them  from  before 
you  (Josh.  24:2,  8). 

And  the  people  answered  and  said  ....  Yahweh  drove  out  from 
before  us  all  the  peoples,  even  the  Amorites  that  dwelt  in  the  land 
(Josh.  24:16, 1 8). 

The  next  event  that  we  read  about  after  the  conquest  is 
the  setting  up  of  the  one,  legal  place  of  worship,  according  to 
Deuteronomy,  chap.  12  (supra,p.  18).  This  was  accomplished, 
as  we  are  told  by  the  Book  of  Joshua,  at  a  place  called  "  Shi- 
loh,"  hi  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim.  "And  the  whole  con- 
gregation of  the  children  of  Israel  assembled  themselves 
together  at  Shiloh,  and  set  up  the  Tent  of  Meeting  there.  And 
the  land  was  subdued  before  them"  (Josh.  18:1;  cf.  22:4). 

In  order  to  emphasize  the  legitimacy  and  singleness  of 
the  altar  at  Shiloh,  an  interesting  narrative  is  given  hi  the 
Book  of  Joshua  concerning  a  .great  altar  named  Edh  (witness), 
which  was  built  by  the  tribes  that  remained  east  of  Jordan. 
This  excited  the  wrath  of  the  remainder  of  the  nation,  which 
rose  against  them  to  .wan  But  before  proceeding  to  punish 
then*  brethren  for  this  great  crime,  the  assembled  congregation 
of  Israel  sent  word,  asking  the  criminals  to  give  an  account 
of  themselves.  The  reply  of  these  tribes  was,  that  the  altar 
was  not  intended  for  sacrifice  and  worship,  but  that  it  stood 
as  a  mute  witness  to  the  fact  that  Yahweh  was  the  god  of 


20  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Israel.  "And  the  thing  pleased  the  children  of  Israel  .  .  .  .  ; 
and  the  children  of  Israel  spake  no  more  of  going  up  against 
them  to  war"  (Josh.  22:33). 

TheJeadjngJdeas  around  which  the  traditional  view  of  the 
origin  of  the  Hebrew  nation  revolves  are,  therefore,  these:  (il 
the  direct  issue  of  the  nation  from  the  patriarch  Jacob-Israel ; 
(2)  the  sudden  formation  of  the  national  group  out  of  the  previ- 
ously unorganized  tribes  in  the  desert  of  Arabia;  (3)  the  Tent 
of  Meeting  as  the  symbol  of  national  unity ;  (4)  the  annihilation 
of  the  Amorites,  the  previous  inhabitants  of  Canaan;  (5)  the 
establishment  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting  at  Shiloh  as  a  reassertion 
of  the  national  integrity  and  as  the  sole  place  of  worship. 

The  view  thus  outlined  is  presented  by  the  first  six  books 
of  the  Bible,  namely,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
Deuteronomy,  and  Joshua.  This  collection  is  distinguished 
by  peculiarities  of  style  and  idea  which  mark  it  off  clearly 
from  the  writings  that  follow  it;  so  that  biblical  scholars 
do  not  speak  of  "the  Pentateuch"  (or  five-book  collection) 
so  much  as  formerly,  but  of  "the  Hexateuch"  (or  six-book 
collection).  Although  the  Hexateuch  begins  with  a  brief 
account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  origin  of  races, 
its  opening  chapters  are  merely  a  preface  leading  to  the  main 
theme;  and  the  entire  plan  of  the  Hexateuch,  from  Genesis 
through  Joshua,  revolves  around  the  rise  and  early  history 
of  the  Hebrew  nation. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  view  of  Hebrew  history 
found  in  the  six  opening  books  of  the  Bible  is  in  startling 
contrast  with  that  found  in  the  books  immediately  following — 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  The  differences  between  the  two 
accounts  are  great;  and  the  discovery  of  them  has  precipi- 
tated the  modern  scientific  investigation  of  the  Bible. 

The  modern  view. — In  contrast  with  the  Hexateuch,  the 
Book  of  Judges  presents  materials  for  a  view  of  Hebrew 
history  differing  greatly  from  the  one  just  summarized.  For 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  HEBREW  NATION  21 

this  book  treats  the  Israelite  invasion  of  Canaan  as  taking 
place,  not  during  the  lifetime  of  Joshua  and  under  his  leader- 
ship, but  after  his  death.  To  this  effect  we  read,  "And  it ' 
came  to  pass,  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  that  the  children  of 
Israel  asked  of  Yahweh,  saying,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  first 
against  the  Canaanites,  to  fight  against  them?"  (Judg.  1:1; 
italics  ours).  The  passages  reproduced  below  bear  directly 
upon  the  situation.  We  quote  the  opening  verse  of  Judges 
again  by  way  of  emphasis  (italics  ours) : 

And  it  came  to  pass,  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  that  the  children 
of  Israel  asked  of  Yahweh,  saying,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  first  against 
the  Canaanites  to  fight  against  them  ?  And  Yahweh  said,  Judah  shall 
go  up.1  ....  And  Yahweh  was  with  Judah,  and  he  drove  out  the  in- 
habitants of  the  hill-country;  for  he  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants 

of  the  valley,  because  they  had  chariots  of  iron And  Manasseh 

did  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  Beth-shean  and  its  villages,  nor  of 
Taanach  and  its  villages,  nor  the  inhabitants  of  Dor  and  its  villages, 
nor  the  inhabitants  of  Ibleam  and  its  villages,  nor  the  inhabitants  of 
Megiddo  and  its  villages;  but  the  Canaanites  would  dwell  in  that 

land And  Ephraim  drove  not  out  the  Canaanites  that  dwelt  in 

Gezer;  but  the  Canaanites  dwelt  in  Gezer  among  them.  Zebulun 
drove  not  out  the  inhabitants  of  Kitron,  nor  the  inhabitants  of  Nahalol ; 

but  the  Canaanites  dwelt  among  them Asher  drove  not  out 

the  inhabitants  of  Acco,  nor  the  inhabitants  of  Sidon,  nor  of  Ahlab 
nor  of  Achzib,  nor  of  Helbah,  nor  of  Aphik,  nor  of  Rehob;  but  the  Asher- 
ites  dwelt  among  the  Canaanites,  the  inhabitants  of  the  land;  for  they  did 
not  drive  them  out,  ....  Naphtali  drove  not  out  the  inhabitants  of 
Beth-shemesh,  nor  the  inhabitants  of  Beth-anath;  but  he  dwelt  among 

the  Canaanites,  the  inhabitants  of  the  land Now  the  Amorites 

forced  the  children  of  Dan  into  the  hill-country;  for  they  would  not  suffer 
them  to  come  down  into  the  valley  (Judg.  1:1,2, 19,  27,  2g-34).a 

1  We  shall  see  later  in  our  study,  from  an  examination  of  Bible  evidence,  that 
the  expressions,  "asked  of  Yahweh,"  "inquired  of  Yahweh,"  and  "sought  the  face  of 
Yahweh,"  refer  to  the  casting  of  lots,  "Urim  and  Thummim,"  before  an  image  called 
"the  ephod."  The  statement,  "Yahweh  said,  Judah  shall  go  up,"  means,  not  that 
a  voice  was  heard,  but  that  the  lot  came  out  for  the  clan  of  Judah.  This  matter  will 
be  taken  up  in  Part  II. 

J  Amorite  and  Canaanite  are  alternative  Old  Testament  terms  for  the  previous 
inhabitants  of  Canaan,  some  passages  using  one  and  some  the  other.  For  various 
reasons,  we  shall  use  "Amorite." 


22  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Beginning  with  the  passages  reproduced  above,  the  books 
of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  picture  the  case  very  differently 
from  the  Hexateuch.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  national 
organization  and  no  commander-in-chief  at  the  time  the 
clans  come  into  Canaan  from  the  desert  of  Arabia.  Instead 
of  a  single  imposing,  united  army,  we  see  independent  clan 
groups.  Each  clan  acquires  a  foothold  in  the  hill-country; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  the  earlier  inhabitants,  instead  of 
being  annihilated,  remain  in  possession  of  a  long  list  of  walled 
cities,  most  of  which,  together  with  adjacent  villages  and 
fields,  are  in  the  lowlands. 

Not  only  do  these  items  of  difference  emerge  at  once;  but 
as  we  read  on,  we  nowhere  discover  the  state  of  things  which 
the  Hexateuch  leads  us  to  expect.  Nowhere  do  we  find  a 
trace  of  the  "one  valid,  central  sanctuary."  Instead  of  this 
we  find  sanctuaries  widely  scattered  here  and  there  all  through 
the  hill-country.  These  places  of  worship  are  independent 
of  each  other;  and  they  are  identified  with  the  separate 
clans  which  took  possession  of  the  hill-country  at  the  time 
of  the  invasion.  To  be  sure,  we  find  a  place  of  worship  at 
Shiloh;  but  this  is  only  one  of  the  many  sanctuaries  to  which 
the  masses  of  the  people  and  the  leading  men  resort  habitually 
for  the  purpose  of  offering  sacrifice  to  Yahweh.  These  vil- 
lage churches  (for  such  they  may  be  called)  are  to  be  found 
at  such  places  as  Bethel,  Mizpah,  Ramah,  Gilgal,  Bethlehem, 
Hebron,  Dan,  Gibeon,  Shiloh,  Nob,  Mount  of  Olives,  etc.1 
The  local  sanctuaries  reappear  in  Kings  under  the  name  of 
bamoth,  or  "high  places";  and  about  five  hundred  years  after 
the  invasion,  an  attempt  is  made  to  abolish  them,  so  that  the 
religious  devotion  of  the  people  may  be  centered  upon  the 
temple  erected  at  Jerusalem  by  Solomon.  This  attempt  is 

1  See  Judg.  6:24;  11:11;  17:5,13;  18:30;  20:26;  21:2-4,5,8;  I  Sam.  7:5, 
6,9,17;  9:12,13,14;  10:8;  11:14,15;  16:5;  20:6,29;  21:1,2,3,6,7,9;  II  Sam. 
IS:7~9>  I2>  3°>  32>  I  Kings  3:4;  8:1;  and  the  many  notices  of  the  bamoth,  or  "high 
places,"  in  I  and  II  Kings. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  HEBREW  NATION  23 

made  in  connection  with  a  strange  writing  brought  forward 
from  the  temple  by  a  priest.  But  the  experiment  fails  for 
lack  of  popular  support;  and  the  people  soon  return  to  the 
ancient  village  churches. 

Everything  goes  to  show  that  the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel, 
ancLJ£ings,  although  they  stand  after  the  Hexateuch  in  our 
present  arrangement  of  the  Bible,  were  compiled  before  the 
Hexa^eiich  was  written,  and  that  they  present  material  for 
a  more  trustworthy  and  reasonable  view  of  Hebrew  history 
than  do  the  first  six  books  of  Scripture.  Their  testimony 
agrees  with  what  scientific  research  has  discovered  about  the 
origin  of  other  ancient  nations  outside  the  limits  of  Hebrew 
history,  and  also  with  what  has  been  learned  about  clan  life 
among  the  less  advanced  races  at  the  present  day.  We 
shall  therefore  temporarily  set  the  Hexateuch  aside,  reverting 
to  it  later  in  our  study.  The  fact  of  its  disagreement  with 
the  books  following  it  neither  deprives  it  of  all  value  as  a 
historical  witness  nor  invalidates  it  as  an  item  in  the  wonder- 
ful process  by  which  the  religion  of  the  Bible  came  into  the 
world.  But  of  this,  more  in  due  course.  Our  immediate 
concern  is  with  the  modern  view  of  Hebrew  history  as  that 
view  is  formulated  in  dependence  upon  Bible  sources  outside 
the  Hexateuch.  The  modern  answer  to  the  question  about 
the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  nation  may  be  stated  briefly,  in 
sociological  terms,  as  follows: 

The  social  group  known  as  "the  Hebrew  nation"  came 
slowly  into  existence,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  at  the  point  of 
junction  between  two  previously  hostile  races,  the  Israelites  and 
the  Amorites. 

By  planting  ourselves  firmly  upon  the  group  idea,  and  exam- 
ining the  Bible  from  this  point  of  approach,  we  begin  to  find 
light  upon  many  Bible  facts  and  problems  that  are  otherwise 
enshrouded  in  darkness.  There  are  some  highly  important 
and  central  aspects  of  the  Scripture  and  of  Hebrew  history 


24  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

that  cannot  be  thought  through  clearly  without  reference  to 
the  idea  of  the  social  mechanism.  The  modern  view  of  the 
Hebrew  nation  is,  that  it  could  not  possibly  have  originated 
hi  the  Arabian  desert,  as  described  in  the  Hexateuch,  but 
that  its  characteristic  form  is  due  to  the  gradual  fusion  of  two 
races  which  were  at  first  hostile  to  each  other.1 

1  The  modern  view  of  Hebrew  history  is  corroborated  by  certain  passages  found 
here  and  there  in  the  Hexateuch  itself  (Deut.  7:22;  Josh.  13:1-6,  13;  15:63;  16:10; 
17:11-13;  23:4,  5,  12,  13,  etc.).  These  inconspicuous  verses  and  sentences  do  not 
agree  with  the  central  standpoint  of  the  Hexateuch.  But  they  are  in  harmony  with 
Judges  and  Samuel,  and  evidently  come  from  the  same  ancient  documents  that  con- 
stitute the  body  of  those  works.  For  another  interesting  study  of  the  two  views, 
read  Ps.  44: 1-3,  and  then  Ps.  106:34-40.  We  shall  take  up  the  interesting  subject  of 
the  making  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Part  II. 


CHAPTER  III 
PLAN  OF  THE  PRESENT  STUDY 

At  the  present  time,  any  new  book  dealing  with  the  problem 
of  the  Bible  is  likely  to  come  into  the  hands  of  an  intelligent 
and  growing  class  of  persons  whose  needs  and  interests  ought 
to  be  borne  carefully  in  mind  by  any  author  who  enters  this 
field.  Large  numbers  of  laymen  are  today  in  revolt  against 
many  of  the  older  statements  of  doctrine.  Such  persons  are 
in  possession  of  normal  intelligence  and  mental  competence. 
But  for  various  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  it  has  not  yet 
come  in  their  way  to  understand  what  has  already  been  done 
by  scholarship  to  meet  their  difficulties.  They  cannot  be 
moved  by  the  mere  word  of  "authority"  (the  world  is  fast 
emerging  from  that  stage);  and  they  can  be  influenced  only 
through  an  appeal  to  their  intelligence  and  the  discipline 
of  their  mental  powers  along  new  lines  of  thought.  The 
professional  reader  may  be  presumed  to  be  able  to  take  care 
of  himself. 

We  shall  now  deal  with  the  presuppositions  which  underlie 
the  foregoing  chapters.  It  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the 
method  thus  far  pursued  has  caused  the  non-professional 
reader  to  ask  certain  questions  which  we  may  now  turn  aside 
to  consider.  The  foremost  of  these  questions  will  have 
related  to  the  making  of  the  Bible.  We  have  seen  incidentally 
that  the  Bible,  in  its  present  form,  is  not  contemporary 
with  the  events  described;  and  we  are  now  ready  to  hear 
something  about  the  literary  nature  of  the  Bible.  The 
reader  will  also  have  asked,  from  time  to  time,  certain  ques- 
tions about  the  social  organization  and  habits  of  thought 
lying  at  the  basis  of  Hebrew  life  and  common  to  the  Semitic 

25 


26  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

peoples;  and  we  are  therefore  now  ready  to  learn  something 
about  the  ancient  foundations  which  existed  before  the  Bible 
religion  arose.  We  want  to  know  more  about  the  civilization 
hi  which  these  remarkable  events  took  place.  The  mile  posts 
of  our  journey  are  more  or  less  familiar;  but  the  land  through 
which  we  are  traveling  is  a  country  of  strange  marvels;1  and 
we  would  pause  by  the  way  to  investigate  some  of  its  aspects 
more  closely.  These  matters  we  shall  take  up  in  the  following 
division  of  our  study,  Part  II,  under  the  title,  "Elements  of 
the  Bible  Problem." 

In  Part  III,  entitled,  "  Development  of  Bible  Religion,"  we 
shall  go  systematically  into  the  social  process  through  which 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  came  into  existence.  The  line  of 
treatment  there  to  be  followed  has  been  suggested  in  the 
Prefatory. 

In  Part  IV,  "The  Spread  of  Bible  Religion,"  we  shaU  take 
up  the  sociological  phase  of  the  relation  between  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  and  consider  the  progress  of  the  gospel  of  redemp- 
tion through  the  Roman  empire  and  mediaeval  Europe. 

In  Part  V,  "The  Bible  and  Its  Religion  in  the  Modern 
World,"  we  shall  consider  chiefly  the  social  and  economic 
aspects  of  the  Reformation,  the  rise  of  higher  criticism,  and 
the  reassertion  of  the  social  aspect  of  the  Gospel. 

The  program  thus  laid  down  must  be  held  rigorously 
under  control  in  order  to  be  of  the  most  benefit.  Discussions 
of  metaphysical  and  theological  problems  must  be  avoided;  for 
they  have  no  place  in  a  course  of  scientific  study  like  the 
present. 

1  This  expression  comes  from  a  private  letter  to  the  writer. 


PART  II 
ELEMENTS  OF  THE  BIBLE  PROBLEM 


FOREWORD  TO  PART  II 

This  division  of  our  study  is  intended  chiefly  for  the  layman. 
The  treatment  here  is  not  entirely,  but  mainly,  sociological. 
The  following  chapter,  for  instance,  on  the  "Making  of  the 
Old  Testament,"  relates  to  a  theme  which  would  appear  to 
fall  entirely  within  the  scope  of  literary  introduction.  But, 
by  emphasizing  that  the  Old  Testament  puts  forward  a  series 
of  moral  verdicts  on  a  social  process  already  lying  in  the  past, 
we  adjust  the  literary  problem  within  the  sociological  perspec- 
tive. More  obviously  sociological  are  the  chapters  on  "The 
Kinship  Institutions,"  and  "The  Industrial  Institutions"; 
while  the  chapter  on  "The  Early  Religious  Institutions"  will 
be  found  to  be  of  substantially  the  same  character.  After 
we  have  canvassed  the  elements  of  the  situation,  we  shall  be 
ready  to  consider  the  development  of  Bible  religion. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  MAKING  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  Hebrew  Bible  was  compiled  from  documents  much  older 
than  the  Scriptures. — The  ruin  of  ancient  Israel  was  neces- 
sary to  the  birth  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Hebrew  Bible 
was  compiled  and  published  in  view  of  the  national  downfall. 
Its  writings  were  collected  by  editors  and  commentators  who 
lived  long  after  the  events  described.  The  Old  Testament, 
as  a  whole,  has  come  to  us  through  the  hands  of  writers  who 
look  back  on  Hebrew  history  from  a  long  distance  in  time. 
The  method  of  these  authors,  as  they  themselves  indicate, 
was  first  of  all  to  extract  material  from  ancient  books,  word 
for  word.  Several  of  these  ancient  sources,  far  older  than  the 
Bible  itself,  are  given  by  name.  Thus,  we  find  The  Book  of 
the  Wars  of  Yahweh  quoted  in  Num.  21:14,  IS-  This  work 
was  regarded  as  an  authoritative  "source"  by  the  writers 
of  the  Bible.  Of  similar  nature  was  The  Book  of  Yashar. 
This  is  quoted  in  II  Sam.  1:18-27,  and  in  Josh.  10:12,13. 
More  frequently  referred  to  are  certain  writings  called  respec- 
tively The  Book  of  the  Matters  Pertaining  to  the  Kings  of  Israel, 
and  The  Book  of  the  Matters  Pertaining  to  the  Kings  of  Judah.1 
These  authorities  are  often  mentioned  (see  I  Kings  14:19,  29, 
etc.). 

Then  there  are  other  facts,  of  a  different  nature,  pointing 
to  the  same  conclusion,  that  the  Old  Testament  was  put  into 
its  present  form  by  writers  who  were  not  contemporary  with 
the  events  described.  For  instance:  The  Book  of  II  Kings 

1  They  have  these  titles  in  the  Hebrew;  but  they  are  cited  in  English  Bibles  as 
the  books  of  the  "chronicles"  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah.  They  are  not  the 
books  of  I  and  II  Chronicles,  however;  for  they  are  said  by  the  writers  of  Kings  to 
contain  material  which  we  cannot  find  in  I  and  II  Chronicles. 

30 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  31 

takes  us  up  to  the  Babylonian  captivity;  whence  we  get  the 
suggestion  that  this  book  was  produced  after  that  event. 
In  the  same  way,  the  Book  of  Judges,  which  deals  with  a  very 
early  period  of  Israelite  history,  speaks  of  the  "captivity" 
(18:30).  Whether  this  refers  to  the  captivity  of  Israel  in 
the  eighth  century,  or  that  of  Judah  in  the  sixth — in  either 
case,  the  writer  occupies  a  standpoint  many  hundreds  of  years 
removed  from  the  events  described  in  Judges.  This  is  a 
matter  of  the  simplest  reasoning.  The  process  by  which  this 
conclusion  is  reached  is  not  in  any  way  mysterious.  Suppose 
we  pick  up  a  history  of  the  settlement  of  the  Pilgrims  in 
Massachusetts,  in  which  there  occurs  a  reference  to  the  election 
of  Lincoln  to  the  presidency  of  the  United  States.  From 
this,  we  at  once  know  that  the  author  of  the  book  must  have 
written  at  least  as  late  as  1860,  or  two  hundred  and  forty 
years  after  the  arrival  of  the  Pilgrims  in  America. 

Again,  take  the  following  passage  in  Genesis:  "And  when 
Abraham  heard  that  his  brother  was  taken  captive,  he  led 
forth  his  trained  men,  born  in  his  house,  and  pursued  as  far 
asDaji"  (Geji._r4^i4).  If  we  now  turn  to  the  Book  of  Judges, 
we  read  that  the  city  of  Dan  did  not  receive  this  name  until 
a  period  long  after  the  Israelite  invasion  of  Canaan,  when 
Abraham  had  been  dead  many  years.  It  was  given  this  name 
by  the  clan  of  the  Danites;  and  we  are  explicitly  told  that 
the  name  of  the  city  "at  the  first"  was  Laish  (Judg.  18:27- 
29).  Why,  then,  does  not  the  narrative  in  Genesis  tell  us 
that  Abraham  pursued  as  far  as  Laish,  the  earlier  name  which 
the  city  had  in  the  patriarchs'  day,  instead  of  saying  that  he 
pursued  as  far  as  Dan  ?  The  obvious  answer  to  this  is,  that 
the  writer  of  Genesis  was  familiar  with  the  later  name  of  the 
city;  and  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  was  composed  long  after 
the  Israelite  settlement  in  Canaan.  Here  again,  therefore, 
we  find  ourselves  facing  the  conclusion  that  a  given  book  in 
the  Bible  was  written,  or  edited,  by  a  person  or  persons  not 


32  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

living  at  the  time  of  the  events  described.  Another  equally 
strong  piece  of  evidence  regarding  the  date  of  Genesis  is 
found  in  the  following  statements:  "And  Abram  passed 
through  the  land  unto  the  place  of  Shechem,  unto  the  oak  of 
Moreh.  And  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land"  (Gen. 
12:6).  The  writer  of  Genesis  thus  occupies  the  standpoint 
of  that  late  period  when  the  Canaanites,  or  Amorites,  were 
fused  with  Israel,  and  lost  within  the  mass  of  the  Hebrew 
nation.  In  order  to  give  local  color  to  the  history  of  the 
patriarchs,  the  writer  of  Genesis  thinks  it  well  to  say  inciden- 
tally that  the  Canaanites  were  then  in  the  land.  These  inter- 
esting items  are  samples  chosen  from  a  large  mass  of  evidence 
accumulated  by  modern  scientific  study  of  the  Bible. 

In  the  age  when  the  Bible  was  produced,  there  was  no  idea 
of  literary  property.  Books  were  chiefly  written  on  rolls  of 
heavy  paper;  and  the  owner  of  a  manuscript  felt  free  to 
do  as  he  pleased  with  it.  Writers  would  copy  a  manuscript 
upon  a  new  sheet,  and  intersperse  their  own  comments.  They 
would  copy  out  a  number  of  old  writings  on  a  new  roll,  and 
add  their  own  remarks  without  giving  notice  to  that  effect. 
There  were  no  footnotes,  or  other  devices  now  employed  in 
books.  All  these  considerations  have  to  be  held  constantly 
in  mind  when  we  are  studying  ancient  works  like  the  Bible. 

It  is  now  definitely  established  that  the  first  six  books 
of  the  Bible  (the  Hexateuch)  were  produced  after  the  Baby- 
lonian exile  by  copying  passages  out  of  a  number  of  earlier 
documents,  and  putting  these  passages  together  so  as  to  make 
the  books  in  their  present  form.  This  method  of  production, 
instead  of  being  unusual,  was  very  common.  We  have  already 
observed  a  parallel  case  in  the  composition  of  the  Books  of 
Kings.  Another  instance  is  found  in  the  old  Arab  historians, 
who  constructed  their  books  by  wholesale  borrowing  from 
earlier  sources.  The  writings  entering  into  the  Hexateuch 
(Genesis  through  Joshua)  are  identified  as  follows:  The 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  33 

earliest  sources  are  two  cycles  of  narratives,  or  stories,  called 
respectively  the  "Yahweh  writings"  and  the  "Elohim  writ- 
ings." These  appear  to  have  been  first  composed  in  Israel 
and  Judah  after  the  revolt  from  the  house  of  David.  They 
embody  many  old  songs  and  traditions  coming  down  from  the 
dim  past;  and  they  are  quite  widely  distributed  throughout 
the  Hexateuch.  The  next  writings  in  point  of  age  are  the 
"  Deuteronomic,"  found  mostly  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 
The  very  latest  elements  in  the  Hexateuch  are  called  the 
"Priestly  writings."  The  meaning  of  these  terms  will  come 
out  more  clearly  farther  along  in  our  study. 

It  is  not  our  place  to  go  over  the  argument  by  which  these 
conclusions  are  suggested.  For  that  line  of  study  belongs 
to  another  discipline,  the  literary  and  historical  investigation 
of  the  Bible.  The  scientific  sociologist,  approaching  the 
Bible  from  the  outlook  of  his  own  line  of  work,  takes  for 
granted  the  generally  established  results  of  literary  and 
historical  study  of  the  Bible.  These  results  are  indispensable 
to  any  kind  of  research  which  aims  to  set  forward  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible.  The  most  fundamental  form  which 
they  take  is,  that  the  Old  Testament  was  compiled  from 
earlier  books;  and  that  the  writers  who  did  the  compiling 
lived  at  a  late  period,  long  after  the  downfall  of  the  Hebrew 
nation.  This  is  the  most  general  way  of  stating  the  case. 
It  is  a  conclusion  of  modern  science,  just  as  definite  and  certain 
as  the  established  laws  and  principles  of  chemistry  and  physics. 
This,  however,  is  only  a  preliminary  statement  which  does 
not  conduct  us  into  the  center  of  the  Bible  problem.  When 
we  have  digested  and  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew 
Bible  was  actually  composed  in  the  way  thus  indicated,  we 
are  in  a  position  to  advance  another  step. 

The  Old  Testament  is  an  ethical  work,  which  pronounces 
moral  verdicts  on  past  history. — The  moment  that  we  dis- 
cover how  the  Old  Testament  was  brought  together  in  its 


34  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

present  form,  at  that  very  moment  another  question  arises. 
The  Bible  writers  admit  that  they  used  only  a  part  of  the  an- 
cient writings  at  their  disposal.  They  do  not  quote  all  the 
material  at  their  command.  They  quote  only  portions  of  the 
ancient  books.  And  they  are  often  in  the  attitude  of  saying 
to  us,  "If  you  want  more  information,  behold  it  is  to  be 
found  in  such  and  such  books."  The  question  arises  now, 
Upon  what  principle  did  the  Bible  writers  choose  their  material 
out  of  the  ancient  sources?  In  short,  Why  was  the  Old 
Testament  written? 

The  answer  to  this  question  is,  that  the  Old  Testament 
(and  ultimately  the  New  Testament)  was  written  to  confirm 
the  work  of  the  great  insurgent  prophets  who  lived  before 
the  downfall  of  the  nation.  The  purpose  of  the  Bible  is  not 
history  in  the  scientific  sense,  but  religious  edification.  The 
writers  through  whose  labor  we  get  the  Bible  were  men  satu- 
rated and  inspired  by  a  moral  purpose.  They  made  use  of 
Hebrew  history  and  tradition  just  as  far  as  this  ancient  mate- 
rial served  their  purpose,  and  no  farther.  The  controlling  aim 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  advance  the  Yahweh  religion  as 
the  worship  of  the  One,  righteous  God,  preached  by  the  great 
prophets  before  the  Exile.  To  this  end,  the  compilers  of  the 
Bible  brought  together  a  vast  mass  of  material  out  of  old 
books,  and  interspersed  this  ancient  material  with  comments 
of  their  own,  pointing  out  here  and  there  the  moral  lessons  of 
past  history,  and  working  all  the  time  in  the  spirit  of  the 
great  prophets. 

We  now  find  ourselves  advancing  toward  a  clear-cut 
idea  of  the  way  in  which  the  Bible  was  composed  and  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  written.  The  authors  of  the 
Bible  were  virtually  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  history  of 
the  human  race  in  general  and  their  own  direct  ancestors 
in  particular.  And  now  a  further  interesting  truth  claims 
our  attention. 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  35 

The  editorial  point  of  departure  in  the  making  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  condemnation  of  the  Hebrews  for  walking  after 
"the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite." — The  editor  who  compiled  the 
Books  of  Kings  had  before  him  a  roll,  or  sheet,  containing 
stories  about  the  prophet  Elijah.  The  twenty-first  chapter 
of  I  Kings  gives  the  story  of  Elijah,  Ahab,  and  Naboth,  which 
is  familiar  to  everybody  who  reads  the  Bible.  Now,  the  entire 
chapter  (I  Kings,  chap.  21),  with  the  exception  of  two  verses 
(25  and  26),  was  copied  out  of  the  Elijah  stories.  The  two 
verses  in  question  were  introduced  by  the  late  editorial  writer 
for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  moral  of  the  story.  The 
chapter  would  read  more  smoothly  if  these  two  verses  were 
omitted,  for  they  break  the  literary  connection  of  the  narrative. 
They  are  very  fittingly  placed  hi  parentheses  by  the  English 
and  American  revised  versions;  but  neither  the  Hebrew  text 
nor  the  King  James  translation  employs  that  device.  Vss. 
25  and  26  are,  in  fact,  no  part  of  the  story;  and  they  simply 
represent  the  editor's  verdict,  or  sentence  of  judgment,  upon 
the  history  which  he  is  copying  out.  The  verses  in  question 
read  thus:  "But  there  was  none  like  unto  Ahab,  who  did  sell 
himself  to  do  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh, 
whom  Jezebel  his  wife  stirred  up.  And  he  did  very  abomi- 
nably in  following  idols,  according  to  all  that  the  Amorites 
did,  whom  Yahweh  cast  out  before  the  children  of  Israel." 

It  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  editorial 
sentence  of  judgment  is  uttered  in  view  of  a  comparison 
between  the  Israelites  and  the  Amorites;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  Amorites  are  thought  to  have  been  "cast 
out"  by  Yahweh.  These  considerations,  indeed,  give  us 
the  point  of  departure  in  the  literary  construction  of  the  Old 
Testament.  While  it  is  true  that  the  Bible  stands  for  justice 
and  morality  in  the  abstract,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  the 
"iniquity  of  the  Amorite"  was  the  concrete  factor  at  work 
in  the  moral  development  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  Parallel 


36  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

with  this  is  the  truth,  already  emphasized,  that  while  Yahweh 
is  opposed  to  all  other  gods,  he  is  practically  conceived  in 
opposition  to  the  Baals  of  the  Amorites.  The  gods  and  the 
morals  of  the  earlier  inhabitants  are  thus  taken  up  together 
into  the  process  of  Hebrew  evolution. 

The  proof  of  this  position  develops  as  we  go  farther  into  the 
evidence.  The  patriarch  Abraham  is  told  that  he  himself 
cannot  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  "for  the  iniquity  of  the 
Amorite  is  not  yet  full"  (Gen.  15:16).  The  moral  practices 
of  the  Amorite,  then,  are  the  black  spot  in  the  Bible  writer's 
field  of  vision.  As  we  move  onward  in  the  Hexateuch,  the  doom 
of  the  earlier  inhabitants  draws  near :  "  Defile  not  ye  yourselves 
in  any  of  these  things.  For  in  all  these  the  nations  are  defiled 
which  I  cast  out  from  before  you.  And  the  land  is  defiled. 
Therefore  I  do  visit  the  iniquity  thereof  upon  it;  and  the  land 
vomiteth  out  her  inhabitants"  (Lev.  18:24,  25).  "For  the 
wickedness  of  these  nations  Yahweh  doth  drive  them  out  from 
before  thee"  (Deut.  9:4).  The  alleged  expulsion  of  the 
Amorites  is  described  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  with  which  the 
Hexateuch  ends  (cf.  supra,  Part  I,  chap.  ii).  The  connection 
of  these  Hexateuchal  passages  with  the  editorial  judgment 
upon  Ahab  in  I  Kings,  chap.  21,  is  so  obvious  as  hardly  to  call 
for  comment.  They  all  move  within  the  same  circle  of  ideas 
about  the  early  history  of  Israel.  Other  passages  of  like 
import  in  the  Books  of  Kings  are  as  follows:  "The  abomina- 
tions of  the  nations  which  Yahweh  drove  out  before  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel"  (I  Kings  14:24).  "Now  it  was  so,  because 
the  children  of  Israel  had  sinned  against  Yahweh  their  god 
....  and  had  feared  other  gods,  and  walked  in  the  statutes 
of  the  nations  whom  Yahweh  cast  out  .  .  .  .  ,  therefore 
Yahweh  was  very  angry  with  Israel,  and  removed  them  out 

of  his  sight So  Israel  was  carried  away  out  of  their 

own  land  to  Assyria  unto  this  day  "  (II  Kings  17:7,  8,  18,  23). 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  37 

The  concluding  words,  "unto  this  day,"  bring  before  us 
the  Bible  writer  surveying  the  past.  These  various  quota- 
tions prove  beyond  a  doubt  what  was  the  standpoint  of  the 
men  who  gave  us  the  Old  Testament:  They  were  a  long 
distance  removed  in  time  from  the  actual  history  of  the 
Hebrew  nation.  They  do  not  undertake  to  construct  an 
accurate,  or  scientific,  narrative.  They  make  use  of  many 
documents  and  traditions;  and  they  make  no  account  of 
disagreements  between  these  ancient  authorities.  They  are 
interested  hi  history  for  the  sake  of  the  moral  lessons  which 
may  be  drawn  from  it;  and  the  concrete  occasion  of  their 
moral  judgment  is  "the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite."  In  this 
way  the  Old  Testament  was  made.1 

The  considerations  here  brought  forward  are  among  the 
"elements"  of  the  Bible  problem  with  which  the  present 
division  of  our  work  deals. 

1  "There  is  no  evidence,"  writes  Professor  Briggs,  "that  the  Divine  Spirit  guided 
these  historians  in  their  historic  investigations  so  as  to  keep  them  from  historic  errors. 
The  Divine  Spirit  guided  them  in  their  religious  instruction  in  the  lessons  they  taught 
from  history.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of  other  guidance." — Briggs,  General  Intro- 
duction to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  (New  York,  1900),  p.  566. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  ANCIENT  SEMITIC  PEOPLES 

Israel  was  one  of  a  number  of  Semitic  peoples. — The  nation 
called  "Israel,"  which  appears  in  the  foreground  of  Bible 
history,  is  one  out  of  many  social  groups  constituting  the 
great  Semitic  race.  One  of  the  important  facts  calling  for 
attention  in  sociological  study  of  the  Bible  is  the  racial  con- 
nection of  Israel  with  surrounding  peoples.  The  Semites 
are  identified  with  the  region  lying  at  the  junction  of  Europe, 
Asia,  and  Africa.  In  ancient  history  this  remarkable  race 
was  distributed  over  the  Arabian  peninsula,  the  valleys  of 
the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  the  eastern  seaboard  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, and  the  valley  of  the  Nile.  These  localities  con- 
tained populations  wholly  or  partly  Semite.  The  Arabian 
peninsula  was  the  field  of  the  Arabs.  The  valleys  of  the 
Tigris  and  Euphrates  were  the  seats  of  the  Babylonians. 
The  Nile  valley  was  the  home  of  the  Egyptians.  At  the  east- 
ern end  of  the  Mediterranean,  on  the  coast  itself,  were  the 
Phoenicians.  Farther  inland  were  the  Canaanites,  or  Amor- 
ites,  the  Arameans,  or  Syrians,  the  Moabites,  Ammonites, 
Edomites,  and  Israelites. 

All  of  these  peoples  have  similar  characteristics;  and  their 
languages  evidently  developed  out  of  an  earlier  Semitic  speech 
whose  elements  are  common  to  all  the  peoples  of  this  race. 
It  has  remained  for  modern  science  to  point  out  broadly  the 
racial  connections  and  affiliations  of  Israel.  But  the  legends 
of  the  Hexateuch  admit  the  same  fact.  The  ancestors  of 
Israel  are  said  to  have  lived  in  the  region  of  Babylonia,  and 
to  have  migrated  westward  into  Canaan  and  Goshen  (Gen., 
chaps,  ii  ff.).  Israel  and  the  surrounding  nations  have  ties 

38 


THE  ANCIENT  SEMITIC  PEOPLES  39 

of  common  blood.  The  entire  situation  suggests  that  the 
earlier,  prehistoric  homeland  of  the  Semitic  race  was  the 
peninsula  of  Arabia.  On  this  point,  Barton  writes  as  follows 
in  his  work  on  Semitic  evolution: 

The  peculiar  conditions  of  life  which  the  Arabian  deserts  and  oases 
have  presented  for  millenniums  are  the  matrix  in  which  the  Semitic 

character,  as  it  is  known  to  us,  was  born The  Bedawi  are 

always  underfed,  they  sutler  constantly  from  hunger  and  thirst,  and 
their  bodies  thus  weakened  fall  an  easy  prey  to  disease;  they  range  the 
silent  desert,  almost  devoid  of  life,  where  the  sun  is  all  powerful  by  day 
and  the  stars  exceedingly  brilliant  by  night.  This  environment  begets 
in  them  intensity  of  faith  of  a  certain  kind,  ferocity,  exclusiveness,  and 
imagination.  These  are  all  Semitic  characteristics  wherever  we  find 
the  Semites;  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  but  that  this  is  the  land  in 
which  these  traits  were  ingrained  in  the  race.1 

Comparative  study  of  the  institutions  pertaining  to  all  the 
Semitic  nations  has  been  a  factor  of  large  importance  in  modern 
scientific  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  We  have  already  made 
some  reference  to  the  Semitic  neighbors  of  Israel;  and  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  do  so  more  frequently  as  our  study 
proceeds.  We  shall  now  turn  to  some  of  the  institutions  that 
were  common  to  the  Semites,  and  which  have  to  be  reckoned 
with  in  sociological  study  of  the  Bible. 

1  Barton,  Semitic  Origins  (New  York,  1902),  p.  28. 


CHAPTER  VI 
KINSHIP  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL 

The  fact  of  kinship,  the  tie  of  blood,  was  emphasized  very 
strongly  in  ancient  society. — The  nations  of  ancient  history 
were  not  composed  of  individual  persons,  in  the  modern 
sense.  They  were  made  up  of  "houses,"  or  families,  which 
were  organized  on  the  basis  of  blood  relationship.  The 
family  group  takes  its  origin  amid  the  darkness  of  prehistoric 
times.  It  is  the  foundation  stone  of  savage  and  barbarian 
society;  and  it  has  always  been  a  powerful  factor  in  the  life 
of  the  great  historic  civilizations.  The  farther  back  we  go 
in  ancient  history,  the  more  important  the  family  becomes. 
In  fact,  ancient  society  was  regarded  as  an  extension  of  the 
family;  and  the  nation  Israel  was  commonly  referred  to, 
in  terms  of  kinship,  as  the  "children  of  Jacob-Israel,"  or  the 
"  family  of  Israel."  It  is  at  first  rather  difficult  for  the  modern 
mind  to  realize  the  strength  of  the  kinship  idea  in  ancient 
society.  Only  with  an  effort  can  we  grasp  the  importance  of 
the  blood  bond  among  races  more  primitive  than  ourselves. 
In  ancient  history,  and  also  among  the  more  backward  peoples 
now  living  on  the  earth,  kinship  is  the  only  ground  upon 
which  a  social  group  can  be  constructed.  It  is  the  central 
tie  around  which  the  activities  of  life  revolve.  The  modern 
civil  state  puts  the  tie  of  blood  in  a  subordinate  and  incon- 
spicuous place;  and  it  overlays  the  family  idea  with  an  impos- 
ing network  of  political  relations.  But  in  an  ancient  society 
like  Israel,  the  civil  state  was  impossible  and  unthinkable. 
The  simpler  organization  of  life  in  those  ages  thrust  the  bond 
of  blood  clearly  into  the  foreground.  Not  only  so;  but  the 
fact  of  kinship  itself  was  treated  from  a  standpoint  unlike 

that  of  the  present  day. 

40 


KINSHIP  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  41 

The  family  in  ancient  Israel  differed  greatly  from  the  modern 
family. — The  standard  form  of  the  Israelite  and  Semitic 
family  was  what  is  now  called  the  "patriarchal."  A  patri- 
arch is  simply  a  "ruling  father."  In  accordance  with  this 
idea,  the  head  of  an  Israelite  family  group  was  called  in  Hebrew 
the  baal,  33Q.  Where  this  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, it  is  variously  rendered  "master,"  "owner,"  "hus- 
band," etc.1  The  baal  was  the  legal  owner  of  the  household 
group  standing  in  contact  with  him.  He  was  the  proprietor 
of  his  wife,  or  wives,  children,  slaves,  cattle,  houses,  lands, 
etc.  The  various  phases  of  domestic  life  in  ancient  Israel 
were  disposed  with  reference  to  this  principle  of  subordination. 

The  position  of  the  family  head  is  illustrated  to  good  effect 
by  the  laws  of  the  Book  of  Exodus.  Thus  we  read:  "If  an 
ox  gore  a  man  or  a  woman  to  death,  the  ox  shall  surely  be 
stoned  .  .  .  .  ,  but  the  baal  of  the  ox  shall  be  quit"  (Exod. 
21:28).  In  translating  this  passage,  the  English  versions 
render  the  term  by  the  word  "owner."  Again,  we  read: 
"If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew  slave,  six  years  shall  he  serve;  and 

in  the  seventh  he  shall  go  out  free  for  nothing If  he  be 

baal  of  a  wife,  then  his  wife  shall  go  out  with  him"  (Exod. 
21:2,  3).  The  phrase  here  italicized  is  rendered  by  the 
English  versions,  "If  he  be  married."  Another  example 
is  found  in  Isaiah,  as  follows:  "The  ox  knows  his  owner, 
and  the  ass  the  stall  of  his  baal"  (Isa.  1:3).  Thus  we  see 
that  the  same  Hebrew  term  indicates  proprietorship  of  a 
wife  and  ownership  of  an  animal.  The  word  baal,  used  in 
this  way,  is  not  familiar  to  those  who  read  the  Bible  only  in 
modern  translations.  But  it  is  well  known  through  trans- 
literation  as  a  noun  commonly  applied  to  the  local  gods  of  the 
Amorites.  These  gods  were  thought  of  by  their  worshipers 
as  the  divine  owners,  or  masters,  of  the  fertile  soil  of  Canaan. 
The  term  baal  is  also  known,  to  some  extent,  as  an  element 

1  We  shall  discuss  the  application  of  this  term  to  the  gods  later. 


42  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

in  "theophoric"  proper  names,  as  "Jerub-baal,  who  is  Gid- 
eon" (Judg.  7:1),  "Esh-baal"  (I  Chron.  8:33).  Whenever 
it  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  text  merely  as  a  common  noun,  as  in 
the  cases  quoted  above  from  Isaiah  and  Exodus,  it  is  not 
transliterated,  but  is  rendered  by  terms  like  "owner,"  or 
"husband."  Study  of  this  word  is  highly  instructive  regard- 
ing the  constitution  of  kinship  groups  among  the  Israelites. 
In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  following  well-known 
passage  acquires  new  interest: 

A  worthy  woman  who  can  find  ?  For  her  price  is  far  above  rubies. 
The  heart  of  her  baal  trusteth  in  her;  and  he  shall  have  no  lack  of  gain. 
She  doeth  him  good  and  not  evil  all  the  days  of  her  life.  She  seeketh 
wool  and  flax,  and  worketh  willingly  with  her  hands.  She  is  like  the 
merchant  ships.  She  bringeth  her  bread  from  afar.  She  riseth  also 
while  it  is  yet  night,  and  giveth  food  to  her  household,  and  their  portion 
to  her  maidens.  She  considereth  a  field,  and  buyeth  it.  With  the 
fruit  of  her  hands  she  buyeth  a  vineyard.  She  girdeth  her  loins  with 
strength,  and  maketh  strong  her  arms.  She  perceiveth  that  her  mer- 
chandise is  profitable.  Her  lamp  goeth  not  out  by  night.  She  layeth 
her  hands  to  the  distaff,  and  her  palms  hold  the  spindle  (Prov.  31:10- 
19). 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  ideal  wife,  according  to  this 
passage,  can  turn  her  attention  to  almost  any  kind  of  work, 
day  and  night.  Such  a  woman  will  not  only  work  by  lamp- 
light; she  will  rise  in  the  dark  hours  of  the  morning,  prepare 
breakfast,  and  set  the  household  slaves  to  their  tasks.  It 
is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  the  writer  distinctly  implies 
that  such  a  person  is  only  an  ideal.  For  he  asks,  Who  can 
find  such  a  woman?  And  then  he  adds  that,  even  if  she 
were  found,  she  would  be  so  valuable  that  her  price  would  be 
far  above  that  of  rubies. 

The  mention  of  price  calls  up  another  phase  of  the  subject. 
The  Israelite  wife  was  virtually  the  property  of  her  husband; 
standing  almost  in  a  chattel  relation  to  him.  A  wife  was 
obtained  by  outright  purchase,  either  in  money  or  goods, 


KINSHIP  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  43 

from  her  father  or  her  male  guardian.  In  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, the  price  of  a  woman  is  called  the  mohar,  in'tt .  No 
marriage  ceremony,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  was  considered 
necessary  to  legalize  the  union  of  man  and  woman.  The 
legalization  of  marriage  was  just  the  payment  of  the  mohar. 
It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  the  Deuteronomic  law 
regulates  the  seduction  of  a  virgin.  The  offender  shall  pay 
the  damsel's  father  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  and  take  her  as  his 
wife  (Deut.  22:28,  29).  A  slightly  different  version  of  this 
law  is  given  elsewhere,  as  follows:  "If  her  father  utterly 
refuse  to  give  her  unto  him,  he  shall  pay  money  according  to 
the  mohar  of  virgins"  (Exod.  22:17).  In  the  view  of  Hebrew 
law,  therefore,  outrage  of  female  virtue  takes  the  character 
of  a  damage  to  the  rights  of  private  property.  The  mar- 
riageable girl  is  the  property  of  her  father,  the  baal. 

Under  a  social  system  in  which  the  husband  is  the  owner 
of  his  wife,  there  is  naturally  no  restriction  upon  the  number 
of  wives  he  may  have,  except  the  limits  imposed  by  his  eco- 
nomic resources  and  the  available  supply  of  women.  Polygamy 
was  therefore  a  factor  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  ancient 
Israel.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  many  Israelites  had  two 
wives;  some,  three  or  four;  while  kings  and  rich  men  had 
still  higher  numbers.  Large  establishments,  of  course,  were 
maintained  only  by  the  wealthy.  The  polygamy  practiced 
by  men  like  David  and  Solomon  must  have  been  exceptional; 
and  in  the  latter  case  there  is  probably  some  exaggeration  in 
the  narratives.  Plurality  of  wives  must  have  been  quite 
limited  among  the  mass  of  the  people.  The  case  of  Elkanah, 
the  father  of  the  prophet  Samuel,  is  doubtless  more  normal 
and  representative  than  that  of  Solomon:  "Now  there  was 
a  certain  man  of  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim;  and  his  name 
was  Elkanah;  and  he  had  two  wives.  The  name  of  the  one 
was  Hannah;  and  the  name  of  the  other,  Peninah"  (I  Sam. 
1:1,  2).  Jacob  had  two  wives,  Rachel  and  Leah  (Gen., 


44  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

chap.  29).  Lamech  had  the  same  number,  Adah  and  Zillah 
(Gen.  4:19).  It  makes  no  difference  whether  Jacob  and 
Lamech  were  actual  persons  or  not.  The  stories  in  which 
they  appear  give  an  accurate  reflection  of  the  social  life  of 
Israel  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  The  underlying 
social  institutions  of  the  Hexateuch  are  in  agreement  with 
those  of  the  Judges-Samuel-Kings  narratives. 

When  the  baal,  the  head  of  the  family,  died,  his  property 
descended  to  the  eldest  son.  If  there  were  no  son,  the  estate 
went  to  some  other  male  relative,  or  to  an  adopted  male  heir. 
Inheritance  must  by  all  means  go  down  through  the  male 
line.  This  principle  was  absolute.  A  good  example  is  found 
in  the  case  of  Abraham,  who  declares,  "I  go  childless;  and 
he  that  shall  be  the  possessor  of  my  family  is  Eliezer  of  Damas- 
cus" (Gen.  15:2).  By  reference  to  the  narrative,  we  find 
that  Eliezer  is  the  steward,  or  chief  slave,  in  the  family  of 
Abraham.  If  Abraham  die  without  male  issue,  the  steward, 
a  foreigner,  is  to  be  his  heir.  For  his  wife  Sarai  cannot 
inherit.  If  Isaac  had  not  been  born,  Eliezer  would  thus 
have  been  the  successor  of  Abraham.  An  example  of  the 
adoption  of  a  trusted  slave  so  that  he  could  inherit  is  found  in 
I  Chron.  2:34:  "Now  Sheshan  had  no  sons,  but  [he  had] 
daughters.  And  Sheshan  had  a  slave,  an  Egyptian,  whose 
name  was  Jarha.  And  Sheshan  gave  his  daughter  to  Jarha 
his  slave  to  wife."  By  such  means  the  organized  life  of  the 
kinship  group  was  continued  under  male  headship,  and  the 
family  establishment  was  kept  together.1 

These  references  to  adoption  prove  that  while  blood  kinship 
was  regarded  as  the  fundamental  bond  of  society,  the  principle 
could  not  be  applied  consistently.  If  the  kinship  theory 
were  strictly  followed  out,  it  would  have  excluded  all  foreign 

1 "  The  right  of  daughters  to  inherit  was  not  an  immemorial  custom There 

is  no  trace  of  the  existence  of  such  a  right  in  the  pre-exilic  period;  and  ....  it  may 
be  reasonably  inferred  that  as  late  as  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.  the  right  of 
daughters  to  inherit  was  still  unknown." — Gray,  Numbers  ("International  Critical 
Commentary,"  New  York,  1903),  p.  397. 


KINSHIP  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  45 

blood  from  Israel.  But  the  Israelites  were  frequently  in 
contact  with  foreigners  who  came  into  close  relations  with 
them;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  appears  that  the  nation 
called  "Israel"  was  itself  the  product  of  an  ethnic  mixture. 
In  the  first  place,  it  was  the  result  of  union  between  the  invad- 
ing clans  from  the  Arabian  desert  and  the  earlier  Amorite 
inhabitants.  As  time  went  on,  other  outsiders  were  grafted 
into  the  social  body.  Jarha,  the  Egyptian  slave,  is  a  case  in 
point.  King  David's  grandmother  was  a  Moabite  woman  of 
the  name  of  Ruth,  as  indicated  in  the  Book  of  Ruth  (4:17). 
King  Ahab  married  a  Phoenician  woman  from  the  city  of 
Sidon  (I  Kings  16:31).  Ezra's  prohibition  of  marriage  with 
foreigners  is  post-exilic,  as  are  also  the  corresponding  laws 
in  the  Hexateuch  (Ezra  9:1,  2ff.;  Exod.  34:15,  16;  Deut. 
7:3,  4;  Josh.  23:12).  In  cases  where  these  aliens  were 
females,  they  came  in  either  through  purchase,  or  by  capture 
in  war,  or  by  way  of  state-marriage  with  the  kings.  Where 
they  were  of  the  male  sex,  they  came  in  either  as  chattels,  or 
as  adopted  freemen.  An  outsider  thus  adopted  was  known 
as  a  ger,  "ft  (in  the  plural,  gerim).  The  Old  Testament  has  a 
great  deal  to  say  about  the  "stranger"  and  the  "sojourner." 
It  is  the  gerim  that  are  in  view.  Free  foreigners  became  a 
part  of  Israelite  society  by  adoption  into  some  native  family, 
after  which  they  were  treated  as  blood  members  of  the  kin. 

These  facts  give  us  an  introduction  to  the  Israelite  family. 
Practically  the  same  arrangements  prevailed  throughout 
the  Semitic  field.  Everywhere  the  social  unit  was  the  house, 
or  family,  called  in  Hebrew  bayith,  FT? .  The  house,  or 
family,  was  a  group  connected  by  ties  of  blood,  real  or  assumed, 
and  living  together  under  the  rule  of  a  patriarchal  owner,  or 
baal.  Such  a  group  was  known  as  a  beth-ab,  or  "father's 
house."1  A  family  would  go  to  great  lengths  in  order  to 

1  Beth  is  what  is  called  the  "construct"  form  of  the  noun  bayith.  It  is  produced 
by  a  simple  change  of  vowels,  according  to  rule,  and  means  "house  of."  Thus,  the 
name  "Beth-lehem"  has  the  meaning  "House  of  bread."  "Beth-el"  means  "House 
of  God." 


46  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY -OF  THE  BIBLE 

avenge  the  injury  or  death  of  anyone  connected  with  it. 
Although  the  primitive  law  of  blood-vengeance  has  a  harsh 
effect  when  viewed  from  outside  the  family  circle,  it  is  an 
expression  of  group  solidarity  in  the  earlier  stages  of  social 
evolution;  and  when  regarded  from  within  the  kinship  group, 
it  represents  the  acme  of  kindly  feeling. 

Many  puzzling  Bible  facts  can  be  explained  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  kinship  group. — The  Israelites  may  hold  foreigners 
in  slavery;  but  they  may  not  rule  over  their  "brethren" 
with  rigor  (Lev.  25:44-46).  The  Israelites  may  not  use 
tainted  meat  as  an  article  of  food;  but  they  may  give  it  to 
the  stranger  who  is  within  their  gates,  that  he  may  eat  it; 
or  they  may  sell  it  to  a  foreigner — a  puzzling  gradation  of 
morality,  surely,  but  perfectly  intelligible  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  primitive  social  group  (Deut.  14:21).  Abraham  tells 
a  lie — but  to  the  Egyptians,  who  were  enemies  of  Israel 
(Gen.  12:13).  Jacob  cheats — but  he  cheats  Esau,  the  father 
of  the  Edomites,  who  were  Israel's  foes  (Gen.  27:35).  And 
while  the  Israelites  admit  kinship  with  their  neighbors,  the 
origins  of  these  nearby  peoples  are  said  to  be  blotted  with 
stains  of  dishonor.  For  instance,  their  enemies  the  Moabites 
and  Ammonites  resulted  from  the  incest  of  Lot,  a  nephew 
of  Abraham,  with  his  own  daughters  (Gen.,  chap.  19).  Again, 
their  enemies  the  Ishmaelites  are  allowed  to  be  children  of 
Abraham,  but  through  a  slave-woman,  Hagar,  who  belonged  to 
Sarai,  the  wife  of  Abraham  (Gen.,  chap.  16).  Their  enemies 
the  Edomites  were  sprung  from  a  grandson  of  Abraham  who 
foolishly  despised  the  sacred  privileges  of  his  birthright, 
which  he  sold  for  a  mess  of  pottage  (Gen.,  chap.  25).  If 
we  take  the  biblical  material  frankly  as  coming,  not  from 
a  people  with  modern  ideas,  but  from  a  nation  whose 
morals  are  fixed  by  the  usages  of  the  ancient  kinship  group, 
we  shall  have  no  difficulty  with  problems  that  will  be 
otherwise  obscure. 


KINSHIP  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  47 

Family  groups  in  Israel  were  organized  into  larger  groups 
for  various  purposes. — During  the  period  contemplated  by 
the  Book  of  Judges,  there  was  a  rude  but  powerful  control  of 
society  based  on  the  organization  of  these  "father's  houses" 
into  groups  known  as  "clans."  In  Hebrew,  the  clan  is  called 
mishphachah,  mnB'S'2 .  As  for  the  nation,  or  kingdom,  it 
had  no  existence  in  the  "Judges"  period.  "In  those  days 
there  was  no  king  in  Israel"  (Judg.  21:25).  The  people 
were  in  the  clan  stage  of  social  evolution  at  the  time  of  the 
Israelite  invasion  of  Canaan,  and  for  long  after.  Each  clan 
had  its  own  leader,  corresponding  to  the  Arabian  sheikh  of 
the  present  day.  The  clan  head  was  a  kind  of  arbitrator 
between  the  different  families  composing  the  association. 
In  this  character  he  was  known  as  a  "judge,"  or  shophet, 
ttS'S .  This  word  connects  with  the  term  shaphat,  meaning  to 
decide,  to  administer  customary  justice,  or  to  rule.  From  the 
same  origin  is  derived  the  word  mishpat,  now  so  familiar  to  us, 
referring  to  the  "judgment,"  or  "justice"  which  prevailed 
from  time  immemorial  in  the  Israelite  and  other  Semitic 
clans.  In  cases  of  dispute  between  families,  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  shophet  to  hold  a  court  of  justice,  and  decide  how  the 
clan  customs  found  application  to  the  matter  in  hand;  the 
question  being,  "What  was  wont  to  be  done  by  them  of  old 
time  ?  "  The  judge  was  not  in  a  position  of  absolute  authority. 
His  verdicts  were  subject  to  the  approval  of  a  council  of  elders 
who  represented  all  the  freemen  of  the  families  composing  the 
clan.  It  is  this  primitive  state  of  things  that  Isaiah  has  in 
mind  when  he  says,  "I  will  restore  thy  judges,  as  at  the  first, 
and  thy  counsellors,  as  at  the  beginning"  (Isa.  i : 26). 

The  functions  of  these  men  related  not  only  to  peace  but  to 
war.  For  matters  of  defense  and  offense  are  always  of  large 
importance  in  the  clan  stage  of  history.  War  policy  was 
decided  ultimately  by  the  freemen  of  the  clan.  Sometimes 
a  number  of  clans  united  against  a  common  enemy.  A 


48  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

case  in  point  is  the  co-operation  of  several  Israelite  clans 
against  a  number  of  desert  clans  which  had  likewise  united 
against  the  Israelites  and  invaded  the  land: 

Then  all  the  Midianites  and  the  Amalekites  and  the  children  of  the 
east  assembled  themselves  together;  and  they  passed  over,  and  en- 
camped in  the  valley  of  Jezreel.  But  the  spirit  of  Yahweh  came  upon 
Gideon;  and  he  blew  a  trumpet;  and  [the  clan  of]  Abiezer  was  gathered 
together  after  him.  And  he  sent  messengers  throughout  all  [the  clans 
of]  Manasseh;  and  they  also  were  gathered  together  after  him;  and 
he  sent  messengers  unto  [the  clans  of]  Asher,  Zebulun,  and  Naphtali; 
and  they  came  up  to  meet  them  (Judg.  6:33-35). 

In  this  case,  the  clan  leader  Gideon,  by  his  energy  and 
initiative,  performed  a  service  of  great  value  to  a  number  of 
independent  clan  groups.  The  inevitable  result  was  that  he 
acquired  prestige  beyond  the  limits  of  his  own  clan,  Abiezer. 
"Then  the  men  of  Israel  said  unto  Gideon,  Rule  thou  over  us, 
both  thou,  thy  son,  and  thy  son's  son  also;  for  thou  hast 
saved  us  out  of  the  hand  of  Midian"  (Judg.  8:22).  Such 
men  as  Gideon,  connected  with  the  old  family  aristocracy, 
were  called  into  prominence  by  the  conditions  of  the  early 
period.  Although  Gideon  did  not  become  king,  it  was  to 
men  of  his  class  that  the  people  turned  for  leadership  when 
the  time  came  to  unite  the  clans  permanently  into  a  nation. 
The  family  heads  and  the  clan  leaders  owed  their  masterful 
position  very  largely  to  the  terrific  strain  imposed  upon 
society  in  the  all-round  struggle  for  existence  in  those  early 
and  stern  ages  of  the  world.  The  despotic  power  of  the 
ancient  Semitic  baal,  or  house  father,  seems  excessive  when 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  our  gentler  modern  civiliza- 
tion; but  there  was  great  need  that  the  members  of  these 
kinship  associations  be  disciplined  by  a  strong  hand  lest  they 
be  swept  out  of  existence  by  rival  groups.  The  power  of  the 
baal  was,  in  fact,  a  useful  "function"  of  ancient  society. 
We  have  looked  at  the  subject  in  the  present  chapter  chiefly 
from  the  standpoint  of  kinship;  and  it  now  becomes  neces- 
sary to  look  at  the  facts  from  another  angle. 


CHAPTER  VII 
INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL 

Human  slavery  was  an  important  element  in  the  social  fab- 
ric of  ancient  Israel. — The  very  circumstances  that  gave  the 
household  baal  his  position  and  authority  in  Israel  depressed 
the  other  members  of  the  family  group  in  various  degrees. 
The  baals  collectively  constituted  the  upper  social  class — the 
freemen;  while  the  remainder  of  the  population  was  in  the 
lower  class.  But  within  the  lower  class  itself  there  were 
differences  of  position.  The  most  inferior  place  of  all  was 
held  by  the  slave,  or  bondservant.  Slavery,  indeed,  was  not 
a  thing  in  a  corner;  it  was  an  institution,  bound  up  in  the 
essential  structure  of  society.  A  good  illustration  is  given 
by  the  following  passage  from  the  Book  of  Leviticus: 

As  for  thy  bondmen  [ebed]  and  thy  bondmaids  [amah]  whom  thou 
shalt  have:  Of  the  nations  that  are  round  about  you,  of  them  shall 
ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the 
strangers  that  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their 
families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  have  begotten  in  your  land; 
and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall  make  them  for  an 
inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  hold  for  a  possession.  Of 
them  shall  ye  take  your  bondmen  forever  (Lev.  25: 44-46). x 

Few  readers  of  the  Bible  among  the  laity  are  aware  that 
slavery  had  the  public,  fundamental  character  which  this 

1  The  Hebrew  word  goyim,  "nations,"  in  vs.  44,  is  translated  "heathen"  by  the 
King  James  Version,  on  the  theory  that  slavery  is  a  punishment  for  heathenism.  But 
in  other  cases  where  the  same  Hebrew  term  occurs,  it  is  rendered  correctly  by  the  King 
James  Version,  as  in  Gen.  12:2,  where  the  promise  is  made  to  Abraham,  "I  will  make 
of  thee  a  great  nation."  If  the  King  James  translators  were  here  consistent  with  their 
usage  in  Lev.  25 : 44,  they  would  have  to  make  it  read,  incorrectly,  "  I  will  make  of  thee 
a  great  heathen."  Again,  in  Gen.  25:23,  where  Yahweh  says  to  Rebekah,  "Two 
nations  are  in  thy  womb,"  they  would  have  to  render  the  passage,  "Two  heathen," 
etc.  In  all  these  passages,  the  revised  versions  translate  correctly  and  consistently 
"nation." 

49 


50  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

passage  indicates.  We  must,  therefore,  emphasize  it  further 
before  proceeding  to  deal  with  it  from  the  sociological  stand- 
point. An  instructive  sidelight  on  the  passage  that  we  have 
just  quoted  from  Leviticus  is  furnished  by  the  "tenth  com- 
mandment" (Exod.  20:17).  This  is  a  general  injunction 
against  the  sin  of  covetousness.  As  translated  by  the  King 
James  and  the  Revised  versions  it  reads:  "Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  house,  thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 
bor's wife,  nor  his  man-servant,  nor  his  maid-servant,  nor  his 
ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  anything  that  is  thy  neighbor's."  The 
words  rendered  "man-servant"  and  "maid-servant"  are 
exactly  the  same  that  occur  in  the  passage  previously  repro- 
duced from  Leviticus,  namely  ebed  and  amah;  and  they  should 
be  translated  exactly  the  same.  The  slightest  thought 
about  this  well-known  commandment  is  enough  to  show  that 
the  "servants"  in  question  must  have  been  regarded  as  prop- 
erty, or  it  would  not  be  a  sin  to  covet  them.  For  there  is 
nothing  wrong  in  desiring  your  neighbor's  free,  hired  servant. 
Clearly,  then,  the  Hebrew  and  the  logic  of  the  "tenth  com- 
mandment" indicate  the  fact  of  slavery.  Again,  the  same 
words  recur  in  another  important  connection,  as  follows: 
"If  a  man  smite  his  bondman  [ebed]  or  his  bondwoman 
[amah]  with  a  rod  and  he  die  under  his  hand,  he  shall  surely 
be  punished.  Nevertheless,  if  he  continue  a  day  or  two,  he 
shall  not  be  punished,  for  he  is  his  money"  (Exod.  21:20). 
The  nouns  for  slave  in  this  passage  are  correctly  rendered  in 
the  margin  of  the  English  and  American  Revised  versions, 
but  not  in  their  text,  nor  anywhere  in  the  King  James  transla- 
tion. In  this  last  passage,  the  slave  is  frankly  reckoned  among 
the  financial  resources  of  his  master,  as  in  the  italicized  clause 
reading,  "for  he  is  his  money."  The  evidence  thus  put 
forward  could  be  multiplied  if  necessary;  but  it  is  probably 
sufficient  for  the  purpose  in  hand. 


INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  51 

Slavery,  however,  was  not  peculiar  to  Israel ;  it  was  common 
to  the  ancient  civilizations. — The  origin  of  slavery  is  very 
simple.  It  has  no  existence  where  labor  is  not  able  to  produce 
a  surplus  of  goods  over  and  above  immediate  needs.  Thus, 
the  Masai  of  East  Africa  have  no  provisions  to  spare.  They 
are  nomads,  who  live  upon  herds  of  a  constant  size;  and 
they  kill  their  prisoners  of  war.  On  the  other  hand,  their 
neighbors,  the  Wakamba,  are  higher  in  the  evolutionary 
scale,  being  farmers  and  traders;  and  they  do  not  kill  their 
prisoners  of  war,  but  keep  them  for  industrial  purposes.1 
These  two  tribes  illustrate  the  contrast  between  the  wander- 
ing and  the  settled  periods  of  social  progress.  The  nomadic 
Masai  have  no  economic  surplus  and  no  slaves.  The  settled 
Wakamba  have  both  an  economic  surplus  and  slaves.  The 
general  principle  at  work  here  is  not  difficult  to  see. 

If  we  follow  social  evolution  back  into  the  nomadic  stage, 
we  find  many  small  groups  warring  fiercely  in  a  great  struggle 
for  food.  Under  such  conditions,  war  is  a  campaign  to  exter- 
minate rivals.  But  in  the  midst  of  this  crude,  savage  world, 
the  trend  of  social  evolution  is  vastly  and  profoundly  affected 
by  all  that  we  designate  under  the  head  of  "progress  in  the 
material  arts."  It  is  material  progress  that  makes  the  gulf 
between  savagery  and  civilization.  The  savage  cannot  con- 
trol the  physical  world  in  which  he  lives;  but  the  civilized 
man  is  able  to  control  and  shape  his  environment.  Progress 
in  the  material  arts  brings  with  it  the  power  of  producing  a 
surplus  over  and  above  immediate  needs.  This  changes  the 
issue  of  war.  The  victors,  instead  of  slaughtering  their  prison- 
ers, begin  to  spare  life  and  to  make  slaves  of  the  vanquished. 
Thus,  material  progress  converts  war  from  a  struggle  for 
extermination  into  a  struggle  for  domination,  or  control. 
The  larger,  better  organized,  and  more  powerful  groups  con- 
quered and  absorbed  the  smaller,  producing  compound  social 

1  Ratzel,  History  of  Mankitid  (London,  1896),  Vol.  I,  p.  123. 


52  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

groups,  with  an  upper  layer  of  freemen  and  a  lower  class 
of  slaves  and  other  inferior  persons.  Thus  there  came  slowly 
into  existence  national  societies,  occupying  favored  regions 
like  the  valleys  of  the  Nile,  the  Tigris,  and  the  Euphrates; 
and  the  curtain  at  length  rolled  up  on  the  stage  of  world- 
history.  These  considerations,  based  on  an  overwhelming 
mass  of  evidence,  thoroughly  sifted  and  proved  by  scientific 
research,  carry  us  upward  by  a  direct  route  through  the  mists 
and  uncertainties  of  primeval  ages  into  the  light  of  that 
ancient  period  in  which  the  Hebrew  nation  had  its  remarkable 
history.  Ancient  Semitic  civilization  comes  forward  out  of 
the  darkness  of  prehistoric  times,  through  a  haze  of  myth  and 
legend.  Its  progress  in  material  art  lifts  it  high  above  the 
surrounding  savagery  and  barbarism.  But  it  moves  under 
the  heavy  stress  and  strain  of  war;  and  it  is  everywhere 
stratified  into  two  classes,  whereof  the  lower  is  the  property 
of  the  upper. 

Slavery  arises  when  society  passes  over  from  the  nomadic 
to  the  settled  state;  and  it  continues  until  social  evolution 
advances  to  higher  levels.  It  was  one  of  the  pillars  upon 
which  the  structure  of  society  in  Old  Testament  tunes  was 
based.  Its  prevalence  in  Israel  is  hardly  realized  until  we 
study  the  biblical  narratives  and  laws  closely.  The  fact  of 
human  bondage  in  Israel,  and  in  the  Semitic  civilization  as 
a  whole,  is  not  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  modern  ideals; 
it  is  to  be  approached  from  the  standpoint  of  the  social  process 
at  large.  Ancient  civilization  may  be  figured  as  an  oasis, 
green  and  fertile,  amid  the  desert  of  savagery  and  barbarism. 
One  of  the  most  important  functions  of  the  upper  classes  in 
ancient  history  was  military  defense  of  society,  in  order  that 
the  lower  classes  might  enjoy  the  peace  necessary  to  produc- 
tive industry.  This,  of  course,  was  only  one  of  the  vital 
functions  of  the  upper  orders.  It  would  have  been  impossible 
for  free  societies  to  achieve  and  organize  the  progress  that  has 


INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  53 

paved  the  world's  way  upward  from  savagery  into  modern 
civilization.  Modern  democracy  is  as  yet  unaware  that  it 
is  a  heavy  pensioner  upon  culture  attained  through  despotic 
institutions.1 

The  superior  class  in  Israel  was  upheld  not  only  by  slavery 
but  by  ownership  of  the  soil. — Slavery  is  not  the  only  basis 
of  distinction  between  social  classes.  The  institution  of 
land  ownership  is  a  great  factor  hi  the  situation.  When  the 
Israelites  entered  Canaan  a  large  part  of  the  open  country 
came  into  their  grasp.  The  pastures  and  farm  lands  which 
thus  became  the  spoil  of  war  fell  sooner  or  later  into  the 
possession  of  the  baals,  or  family  chiefs,  who  ruled  the  clans 
of  Israel.2  The  institution  of  private  property  in  land  had 
been  long  established  in  the  settled  parts  of  the  Semitic  world; 
and  the  passage  of  Israel  from  desert  life  into  Canaan  repre- 
sents their  entrance  into  a  new  circle  of  ideas  and  practices 
with  reference  to  property.  The  writings  of  the  eighth- 
century  prophets  and  their  immediate  successors  indicate 
that  the  soil  in  then-  day  was  already  reduced  to  the  category 
of  absolute  private  ownership,  to  all  practical  intents  and 
purposes  (Mic.  2:1,  2;  Hos.  5:10;  Isa.  5:8).  By  the  tune 
of  Jeremiah,  no  other  treatment  of  the  soil  was  considered 
possible:  "Men  shall  buy  fields  for  money,  and  subscribe 
the  deeds,  and  seal  them,  and  call  witnesses,  in  the  land  of 
Benjamin,  and  in  the  places  about  Jerusalem,  and  in  the 
cities  of  Judah,  and  hi  the  cities  of  the  hill-country,  and  hi 
the  cities  of  the  lowland,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  south"  (Jer. 
32:44).  The  baals,  therefore,  in  addition  to  their  ownership 
of  the  lower  class,  acquired  the  land  of  the  country.  No 

*Cf.  Wallis,  American  Journal  of  Sociology  (May,  1902),  Vol.  VII,  pp. 
763  f.;  and  Examination  of  Society  (1903),  pp.  38-46. 

2  We  need  not  here  go  into  the  subject  of  the  evolution  of  land-holding  from  a 
real,  or  theoretical,  common  ownership  to  individual  possession.  The  documentary 
evidence  in  the  Bible  is  of  course  too  slender  to  show  us  just  what  was  the  actual 
situation  at  the  period  of  invasion  and  settlement.  Two  systems  came  into  conflict. 


54  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

other  treatment  of  the  soil  would  have  been  practicable  at 
that  period  of  the  world's  development. 

The  Israelites  of  the  country  districts  were  organized  into 
agricultural  and  pastoral  villages. — So  far  as  we  can  learn, 
there  were  no  isolated  houses  or  tents  where  single  families 
dwelt  alone.  Such  an  arrangement  would  be  dangerous  at 
that  period  of  the  world's  history.  The  pressure  of  enemies 
from  the  desert  and  from  neighboring  countries  made  single 
establishments  impracticable.  The  rule  was  for  a  number 
of  related  "father's  houses"  to  unite  in  a  rustic  village. 
This  was  not  a  "city"  in  any  sense,  but  merely  a  hamlet 
set  in  the  midst  of  the  fields  and  hills.  The  country  districts 
were  dotted  with  these  tiny  villages.  They  were  collections 
of  tents  or  houses,  built  close  together  for  protection,  without 
regard  to  architectural  beauty  or  symmetrical  arrangement 
of  streets.  The  identification  of  the  unwalled  villages  with 
the  life  of  the  fields  about  them  is  indicated  thus:  "The 
villages  that  have  no  wall  round  about  them  shall  be  reckoned 
with  the  fields  of  the  country"  (Lev.  25:31).  To  the  dweller 
in  a  walled  city,  like  Jerusalem,  these  tiny  hamlets  were  a 
part  of  the  open  country  life  of  the  nation:  "Let  us  go  forth 
into  the  field;  let  us  lodge  in  the  villages"  (Song  of  Sol. 
7:11). 

Every  morning,  all  who  could  work  went  forth  into  the 
near-by  fields;  and  at  night  they  came  back  to  the  shelter  of 
the  hamlet.  A  good  illustration  is  found  in  the  village  of 
Gibeah,  which  lay  a  few  miles  northeast  of  Jerusalem  in 
territory  pertaining  to  the  clan  of  Benjamin.  Gibeah  was  a 
very  small  place,  having  only  one  main  street.  In  Judg. 
19: 1 6  we  read,  "And  behold,  there  came  an  old  man  from  his 
work  out  of  the  field  at  even."  Gibeah  was  the  home  of  Saul, 
who  became  king  of  Israel.  Concerning  Saul  we  read,  "Then 
came  the  messengers  to  Gibeah  of  Saul.  And  behold  Saul 
came  following  the  oxen  out  of  the  field"  (I  Sam.  11:4,  5). 


INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  55 

Israelite  country  life  has  this  disposition  wherever  we  catch 
sight  of  it.  The  boy  David  cares  for  the  sheep  of  his  father 
Jesse  in  the  hills  of  Judah;  but  the  family  headquarters  are 
at  the  little  village  of  Bethlehem  (I  Sam.,  chap.  16).  The 
home  of  the  prophet  Elisha  was  in  the  village  of  Abelmeholah; 
but  his  work  was  in  the  fields  outside.  We  read  that  when 
a  visitor  came  to  seek  him,  "Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat  was 
plowing  with  twelve  yoke  of  oxen  before  him"  (I  Kings 
19:16,  19).  Likewise,  the  residence  of  the  prophet  Amos 
was  at  the  hamlet  of  Tekoa;  and  his  business  was  that  of  a 
shepherd  and  a  dresser  of  sycamore  trees  (Amos  7:14).  A 
good  picture  of  Israelite  village  life  is  found  in  the  Book  of 
Ruth.  Here,  the  hamlet  of  Bethlehem  stands  in  the  center 
of  the  scene.  One  of  the  local  baals,  or  household  lords,  is 
"Boaz  of  the  family  of  Elimelech."  This  man  owns  land 
outside  the  village,  and  has  many  dependents  working  for  him, 
both  male  and  female.  All  the  leading  characters  of  the  times 
covered  by  the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  were  men  belong- 
ing to  the  upper  class  in  the  hill-country.  Some  were,  of 
course,  wealthier  than  others.  We  reproduce  a  highly  instruct- 
ive passage  concerning  a  sheep  master  in  Judah: 

And  there  was  a  man  in  [the  village  of]  Maon,  whose  business  was 
in  Carmel  [the  garden  land].  And  the  man  was  very  great.  And  he 
had  three  thousand  sheep  and  a  thousand  goats.  And  he  was  shearing 

his  sheep  in  Carmel Now  the  name  of  the  man  was  Nabal; 

....  and  he  was  of  the  clan  of  Caleb.  And  David  heard  in  the  wilder- 
ness that  Nabal  was  shearing  his  sheep.  And  David  sent  ten  young 
men  ....  Get  you  up  to  Carmel,  and  go  to  Nabal,  and  greet  him  in 

my  name And  Nabal  answered  ....  and  said,  Who  is  David  ? 

....  There  be  many  slaves  now-a-days  that  break  away  every  man 
from  his  master  (I  Sam.,  chap.  25). 

This  passage  puts  on  view  a  number  of  the  characteristic 
social  facts  that  we  have  been  studying :  Nabal  was  a  freeman 
of  the  Israelite  upper  class.  He  belonged  to  a  clan  which  was 
known  as  "Caleb."  His  home  was  in  the  rustic  village  of 


56  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Maon.  His  business  was  in  the  neighboring  fields.  He 
possessed  much  property,  which  included  slaves.  His  refer- 
ence to  the  truant  habits  of  slaves  was  probably  suggested  by 
personal  experience.  Nabal's  wealth  was  doubtless  above 
the  average;  but  he  is  a  type  of  the  baal  class  that  controlled 
ancient  Israelite  society. 

Another  good  illustration  is  found  in  the  patriarch  Abraham. 
Although  the  Abraham  narratives  in  Genesis  are  not  accepted 
as  literal  history  of  the  tunes  before  the  invasion,  they  are 
excellent  sources  of  knowledge  about  the  society  in  whose 
midst  they  were  composed  and  circulated.  We  must  bear  in 
mind  that  while  the  Book  of  Genesis  relates  to  prehistoric 
times,  it  was  not  written  until  after  the  Israelites  had  been 
settled  in  Canaan  for  hundreds  of  years.  This  was  brought 
out  in  our  study  of  the  making  of  the  Bible.  We  classify 
Abraham,  then,  with  Nabal;  and  we  will  now  examine  the 
data,  in  order  to  see  how  the  two  cases  compare.  It  is  said 
that  when  the  patriarch  heard  that  his  nephew  Lot  was  taken 
captive,  he  set  forth  to  the  rescue  at  the  head  of  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  slaves,  born  in  his  own  family  (Gen.  14:14,  is).1 
Evidently,  Abraham  was  not  the  lonely  wanderer  sometimes 
pictured,  but  rather  a  "noun  of  multitude."  In  accordance 
with  this,  we  read  that  he  was  "very  rich  in  cattle,  in  silver 
and  in  gold"  (Gen.  13:2).  Of  like  social  position  and  wealth 
was  his  nephew  Lot.  "And  the  land  was  not  able  to  bear 
them,  that  they  might  dwell  together;  for  their  substance 
was  great.  And  there  was  strife  between  the  herdsmen  of 
Abram's  cattle  and  the  herdsmen  of  Lot's  cattle"  (Gen. 
I3:^,  7).  Excepting  that  Abraham  is  necessarily  presented 
as  a  wanderer,  his  position  in  the  social  structure  is  identical 
with  that  of  Nabal.  Abraham's  nomadism  is  imposed  upon 
the  story  by  the  conditions  of  the  narrative,  which  purports 
to  deal  with  the  ancestors  of  Israel  during  the  nomadic  period 

1  The  word  "slave,"  ebed,  occurs  in  vs.  15. 


INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  57 

before  the  invasion  of  Canaan;  but  in  all  other  respects, 
Abraham  and  Lot  can  be  lifted  bodily  out  of  the  Book  of  Gene- 
sis and  put  alongside  the  leading  characters  in  the  Book  of 
Samuel.  In  the  same  class  comes  the  famous  Job,  another 
great  worthy.  It  is  entirely  beside  the  point  to  ask  whether 
Job  was  a  real  historical  person  or  not.  He  is  a  type,  whether 
he  be  real  or  ideal.  In  the  first  chapter  of  the  book  bearing 
his  name,  we  read  that  he  had  eleven  thousand  cattle  and  a 
great  multitude  of  slaves.1  Although  deprived  of  his  posses- 
sions by  misfortune,  he  became,  according  to  the  story,  doubly 
rich  in  the  end. 

There  is  no  evidence  that,  after  the  invasion  of  Canaan,  all 
the  Israelites  moved  regularly  and  uniformly  onward  from  the 
economic  activities  of  nomadism  into  those  of  settled  life. 
In  fact,  so  far  as  the  evidence  permits  us  to  form  a  definite 
conclusion,  it  points  the  other  way.  No  society  has  ever 
gone  smoothly  over  from  one  stage  of  industrial  development 
into  another.  There  is  always  an  overlapping  of  stages. 
And  if  the  pursuits  of  the  more  primitive  period  are  essential 
to  society  (as,  for  instance,  the  cattle  raising  of  nomads), 
these  pursuits  will  be  continued  by  a  part  of  the  population. 
A  number  of  modern  scholars  have  tried  to  build  a  theory 
of  Israel's  religion  upon  the  assumption  of  a  uniform  passage 
from  nomadism  to  agriculture.  It  is  supposed  that  when 
the  Israelites  entered  Canaan,  they  all  made  terms  with 
the  local  Baal  cults  of  the  Amorites;  which,  translated  into 
economic  terms,  means  that  a  number  of  pastoral  clans 
immediately  became  farmers.  The  Amorite  gods  were  sup- 
posed to  bless  the  soil,  and  cause  the  dew  and  rain  to  fall; 
hence  their  cults  were  closely  bound  up  with  agriculture. 
The  farmer  had  to  worship  the  Baal  of  his  district  in  order 
to  have  good  crops.  It  may  at  once  be  conceded  that  a 

1  The  word  indicating  bondservants  occurs  in  1:3;  Abudhah  rabbah,  "much 
slave  service";  but  in  the  English  versions,  "a  very  great  household." 


58  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

majority  of  the  Israelites  became  farmers  after  a  time,  and 
worshiped  the  Amorite  gods.  But  the  assumption  is  impos- 
sible that  all,  without  exception,  bowed  the  knee  to  the  Baals. 
Agriculture  flourished  more  genially  in  Ephraim  than  else- 
where; and  here  the  fusion  of  Israelites  and  Amorites  was 
more  thorough  than  anywhere  else.  But  the  other  two  divisions 
of  the  country — Judah  and  Gilead — stood  in  closer  touch 
with  the  Arabian  desert,  and  remained  on  more  primitive 
economic  levels.  Judah's  rocky  soil  was  more  friendly  to  the 
shepherd  than  to  the  farmer,  as  many  examples  prove.  Gilead 
was  "a  place  for  cattle"  (Num.  32:1).  Here,  the  goats  lay 
along  the  mountain  side  (Song  of  Sol.  4:1).  Here,  people 
and  flock  fed  in  the  ancient  days  (Mic.  7:14).  And  here 
Yahweh  would  bring  Israel  once  more  to  the  sheepfold  and 
the  hills  (Jer.  50:19).  It  is  highly  significant  that  the  first 
two  great  prophets,  Elijah  and  Amos,  are  identified  with 
Gilead  and  Judah  respectively  (I  Kings  17:1;  Amos  1:1). 
In  protesting  against  the  corruption  of  the  age,  they  are  both 
represented  as  leaving  their  own,  more  primitive  homes, 
and  going  over  into  Ephraim,  the  favored  land  of  agriculture 
and  the  stronghold  of  the  Amorite  gods. 

No  distinct,  independent  class  of  merchants  and  manufac- 
turers, in  the  European  sense,  arose  in  Israel. — The  more 
advanced  forms  of  industry,  which  have  had  such  a  tremen- 
dous development  in  western  civilization,  were  comparatively 
backward  in  Israel  and  among  the  Semites  at  large.  Neverthe- 
less, long  before  the  arrival  of  Israel  in  Canaan,  a  considerable 
trade  in  manufactured  goods  and  natural  products  had  arisen 
between  Egypt,  Arabia,  Canaan,  Mesopotamia,  Greece,  and 
outlying  tribes.1  In  connection  with  trade,  it  is  necessary  to 
have  definite  centers  where  exchange  can  be  regularly  carried 
on.  Hence  the  growth  of  cities.  Another  stimulus  to  city 

1  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt  (New  York,  1905),  p.  260;  Rogers,  History  of 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  (New  York,  1901),  Vol.  II,  p.  280. 


INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  59 

life  is  manufacture,  which  tends  to  centralize  at  the  points 
of  exchange.  We  have  seen  that  walled  cities  dotted  the  land 
of  Canaan  long  before  the  Israelites  entered  the  country; 
and  we  have  shown  that  the  invaders  were  not  able  to  take 
these  Amorite  strongholds.  The  confinement  of  the  Israelite 
clans  to  the  hill-country  for  several  generations  excludes 
notice  of  commerce  and  manufactures  from  the  narratives  of 
Judges  and  Samuel.  In  those  books,  the  country  landlord 
stands  at  the  forefront  of  the  stage.  Although  country  and 
city — highland  and  lowland — were  at  length  united  under  the 
kings  of  Israel,  the  Books  of  Kings  in  their  present  form  are 
so  preoccupied  with  religious  conflicts  that  the  economic 
phase  of  life  is  obscured  in  those  writings. 

Among  the  Semites,  the  old  nobility  of  the  clanships  retained 
personal  hold  over  commerce  and  manufactures,  managing 
these  forms  of  industry  through  slaves.  Even  kings  were  not 
ashamed  to  become  traders  by  proxy,  as  in  the  case  of  Solo- 
mon, who  in  this  regard  followed  the  example  of  the  rulers  of 
Egypt  and  Babylon  (I  Kings,  chaps.  9  and  10).  The  figures 
of  the  noble  and  his  steward  are  familiar  in  the  literature 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  chief  slave  of  Abraham, 
"who  ruled  over  all  that  he  had,"  stood  near  the  top  of 
the  social  system,  next  under  the  baal  himself  (Gen.  24:2). 
Leading  slaves  of  this  kind  were  everywhere  favored  in 
proportion  to  their  importance.  In  order  to  stimulate  them 
to  the  most  faithful  service,  they  were  given  commissions  or 
a  share  in  the  profits;  and  they  were  thus  able  to  acquire 
wealth  of  their  own.  The  case  of  Simonides  in  the  novel 
Ben  Hur  (Book  IV,  chap,  iv)  is  a  well-known  illustration. 
Such  men  might  buy  their  freedom,  and  set  up  independently 
of  the  ancient  nobility  if  they  wished,  as  provided  for  in 
Leviticus:  "If  he  become  rich,  he  may  redeem  himself" 
(Lev.  25:49).  But  the  stress  of  war  and  the  general  inse- 
curity were  so  great  in  the  ancient  Semitic  world  that  the 


60  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

benefit  of  detachment  from  the  old  clanships  appears  to  have 
been  outweighed  by  its  disadvantages.  Accordingly,  favorite 
slaves  who  became  wealthy  preferred  to  stand  connected  with 
some  noble  family  of  established  position  and  influence. 

Thus,  there  was  a  tendency  in  Israel  and  throughout  Semitic 
civilization  toward  the  rise  of  a  distinct  merchant  and  manu- 
facturing class,  or  "third  estate,"  as  it  has  been  called  in 
European  history.  But  this  tendency  never  got  full  expres- 
sion; and  the  industrial  side  of  life  was  never  detached  from 
the  old  clanships.  Much  can  be  learned  at  this  point  by 
comparison.  In  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  and  again  in 
mediaeval  Europe,  commerce  and  manufactures  began  under 
the  conditions  just  outlined;  but  their  evolution  went  much 
farther;  and  the  tendency  toward  the  formation  of  a  new 
social  class  became  irresistible.  The  "third  estate"  sprang 
into  existence  outside  the  limits  of  the  old  noble  families. 
An  interesting  situation  resulted.  The  old  nobility  of  Europe, 
through  its  control  of  the  taxing  power  and  the  courts,  hin- 
dered the  ascent  of  the  third  estate.  Great  historic  collisions 
resulted,  the  outcome  of  which  was  the  admission  of  the  new 
class  to  a  voice  in  the  government.  The  basis  of  the  state, 
in  Greece,  Rome,  and  modern  Europe,  was  thus  transferred 
from  Family  to  Property.  In  Semitic  civilization,  however, 
nothing  of  this  kind  occurred.  Government  remained  on 
the  family  basis;  and  the  unfledged  "third  estate"  continued 
within  the  shelter  of  the  ancient  clanships. 

Likewise  the  laboring  class,  or  proletariat,  never  acquired 
the  character  of  distinction  within  Israel. — The  earliest  legal 
codes  in  the  Old  Testament  make  no  mention  of  hired  labor, 
but  assume  that  slavery  is  the  universal  condition  of  the  lower 
class.  These  codes  are  in  Exod.,  chaps.  20  and  21  ff.  But 
in  later  laws,  provision  is  made  for  the  free  laborer,  thus: 

Thou  shalt  not  oppress  a  hired  servant  that  is  poor  and  needy, 
whether  he  be  of  thy  brethren  [the  children  of  Israel],  or  of  thy  sojourn- 


INDUSTRIAL  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL  61 

ers  that  are  in  thy  land  within  thy  gates.  In  his  day  thou  shalt  give 
him  his  hire;  neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon  it;  for  he  is  poor  and 
setteth  his  heart  upon  it  (Deut.  24:14,  15). 

Likewise,  another  late  law  provides  that  "the  wages  of  a 
hired  servant  shall  not  abide  with  thee  all  night  until  the 
morning"  (Lev.  19:13).  These  laws  were  made  in  full  view 
of  a  condition  in  which  the  price  of  hired  labor  was  fixed  by 
the  overshadowing  influence  of  slavery.  Where  slavery  is 
an  established  institution,  as  in  Israel,  it  would  not  profit 
the  upper  classes  to  pay  "free"  labor  much  more  than  slaves 
got — that  is,  a  bare  living.  This  deduction  agrees  with  the 
laws  just  cited;  for  laborers  who  had  to  be  paid  from  day  to 
day  could  not  have  stood  above  the  economic  level  of  slavery. 

The  industrial  institutions  of  Israel  developed  under  the  forms 
of  the  ancient  Clan  State. — In  spite  of  a  progressive  tendency, 
the  economic  side  of  Hebrew  life  always  remained  primitive. 
The  social  classes  that  became  prominent  in  the  later  civiliza- 
tions were  unfledged  in  Israel  and  throughout  the  Semitic 
world.  The  "third  estate,"  on  the  one  side,  and  the  "prole- 
tariat," on  the  other,  were  never  organized  on  an  independent 
footing.  They  existed  potentially;  but  they  had  no  means 
of  self-expression,  and  no  class-consciousness.  Our  survey 
of  Israelite  industry,  therefore,  ends  where  it  set  out — with  the 
clan.  From  first  to  last,  society  was  conceived  only  as  a 
brotherhood  group. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL 

All  ancient  peoples  had  gods. — It  is  a  commonplace  that  all 
the  clans  and  nations  of  antiquity  had  religions,  and  that 
they  all  worshiped  what  were  supposed  to  be  real  beings 
which  we  call "  gods."  The  same  is  true  of  present-day  savages 
who  have  not  been  converted  to  a  higher  faith.  Ancient 
nations  and  unconverted  savages,  then,  have  this  in  common : 
they  are  what  we  call  "pagan,"  or  "heathen."  From  the 
standpoint  of  primitive  religion,  or  heathenism,  there  is  no 
single,  true  God,  besides  whom  no  other  god  exists.  For 
in  the  view  of  primitive  religion,  all  gods  are  equally  real :  one 
god  is  as  much  a  real  being  as  another.  All  the  written 
records  of  antiquity,  including  the  Bible  itself,  are  prepared 
in  view  of  this  impressive  fact.  Long  before  the  dawn  of 
"historic  time,"  the  idea  became  established  in  the  human 
mind  that  there  are  gods.  No  book — not  even  the  Bible — 
has  ever  laid  open  to  us  the  secrets  of  the  process  by  which  the 
human  mind  became  possessed  of  the  god-idea.  Sociological 
study  of  the  Bible,  therefore,  is  not  required  to  investigate  the 
origin  of  religion  in  general.  It  presupposes,  or  takes  for 
granted,  the  idea  of  the  gods  and  the  practices  of  heathen 
religion  as  data  with  which  to  begin. 

In  primitive  religion,  the  gods  are  thought  of  as  members 
of  the  social  group. — It  is  a  matter  of  great  significance  for 
sociology  that  in  primitive  religion  the  god  of  any  people 
is  considered  to  be  a  member  of  the  social  circle  that  worships 
him.  The  gods,  in  fact,  had  as  real  a  place  in  the  social 
fabric  as  the  worshipers  themselves.  To  describe  the  situa- 
tion in  modern  terms,  Church  and  State  were  always  united 

62 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        63 

in  ancient  society.  Religion  and  politics  were  intimately 
connected.  The  separation  of  Church  and  State  was  unthink- 
able to  the  ancient  mind.  The  divorce  of  religion  and  politics 
was  impossible.  Everybody  was  religious.  Atheism,  skepti- 
cism, and  agnosticism,  in  the  modern  sense  of  these  words, 
were  unknown.  Worship  of  the  gods  was  held  to  be  vitally 
necessary  to  the  welfare  of  society.  If  a  man  refused  to  take 
part  in  the  religion  of  his  kinship  group,  he  thereby  ostracized 
himself.  As  nonconformity  could  not  be  tolerated,  he  became 
an  outcast.  The  good  will  and  blessing  of  the  gods  were 
conditioned  upon  the  performance  of  the  customary  acts  of 
worship  on  the  part  of  all  members  of  the  group.  Each  group 
was  responsible,  as  a  corporation,  for  the  maintenance  of 
religion.  It  was  the  feeling  of  group  responsibility  that  was 
outraged  by  refusal  to  take  part  in  the  customary  acts  of 
worship;  and  it  was  this  group  sense  of  outrage  that  led  to 
the  expulsion  of  the  nonconformist.  If  he  were  not  cast  out, 
as  a  visible  expression  of  abhorrence,  the  group  would  be  con- 
structively in  fellowship  with  impiety;  and  this  would  bring 
down  the  divine  wrath  upon  all  alike.  Thus  we  read:  "He 
that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy 

money,  must  needs  be  circumcised And  the  uncir- 

cumcised  male  .  .  .  .  ,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people.  He  hath  broken  my  covenant"  (Gen.  17:13,  14;  cf. 
Exod.  12:44,  45)-  On  this  point,  W.  Robertson  Smith  writes: 
Religion  did  not  exist  for  the  saving  of  souls,  but  for  the  preservation 
and  welfare  of  society,  and  in  all  that  was  necessary  to  this  end  every  man 
had  to  take  his  part,  or  break  with  the  domestic  and  political  community 
to  which  he  belonged.1 

The  feeling  of  "group  welfare"  goes  a  long  way  toward 
explaining  religious  persecution.  It  was  entangled  in  the 
complex  motives  of  the  Reformation  period,  when  Catholics 

1  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Religion  of  the  Semites  (London,  1894),  p.  29.  Cf. 
Barton,  Semitic  Origins  (New  York,  1902),  chap,  iii;  Lagrange,  Etudes  sur  les 
religions  semitiqms  (Paris,  1905),  pp.  70-118. 


64  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

and  Protestants  viewed  each  other's  worship  as  offensive  to 
God,  and  likely  to  bring  down  the  divine  wrath  on  the  entire 
community. 

In  view  of  the  former  close  connection  between  religion  and 
politics,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  primitive  thought 
looks  upon  the  gods  in  a  very  ultimate  and  familiar  way. 
No  essential  or  qualitative  distinction  was  made  between 
divinity  and  humanity.  The  gods  were  in  fact  magnified 
men.  They  were  looked  upon  as  personal  beings,  essentially 
like  men  but  more  powerful;  and  in  the  ancient  mythologies 
they  are  said  to  have  lived  with  men  on  the  earth  in  the 
springtide  of  history. 

The  social  body  was  not  made  up  of  men  only,  but  of  gods  and  men. 
The  circle  into  which  a  man  was  born  was  not  simply  a  group  of  kinsfolk 
and  fellow-citizens,  but  embraced  also  certain  divine  beings,  the  gods 
of  the  family  and  the  state,  which  to  the  ancient  mind  were  as  much  a 
part  of  the  particular  community  with  which  they  stood  connected  as 
the  human  members  of  the  social  circle.  The  relation  between  the  gods 
of  antiquity  and  their  worshipers  was  expressed  in  the  language  of 
human  relationship,  and  this  language  was  not  taken  in  a  figurative 
sense,  but  with  strict  literality.  If  a  god  was  spoken  of  as  a  father  and 
his  worshipers  as  his  offspring,  the  meaning  was  that  the  worshipers  were 
literally  of  his  stock,  and  that  he  and  they  made  up  one  natural  family 
with  reciprocal  family  duties  to  each  other.1 

The  Hebrew  term  translated  "God"  in  modern  versions 
of  the  Bible  is  "el,"  or  "elohim." — The  root  meaning  of  the 
Bible  word  which  is  translated  "God"  is  power,  or  might. 
In  the  singular,  it  is  el,  bx ,  or  eloah ,  "iribtf .  It  appears  in 
the  singular  in  Exod.  6:3;  and  it  is  transliterated  in  the 
Revised  margin  of  that  passage,  where  the  reader  is  told 
that  "El  Shaddai"  means  "God  Almighty."  It  reappears 
many  times  in  the  New  Testament,  for  instance  in  the  words 
of  Jesus  on  the  cross:  Eloi,  meaning  "My  God"  (Mark 
15 134).  It  is  found  in  many  of  the  Hebrew  names,  as  Beth-e/ 

1  W.  Robertson  Smith,  op.  cit.;  cf.  Fraser,  The  Golden  Bough:  Studies  in  Com- 
parative Religion  (London,  1890),  Vol.  I,  pp.  30,  31. 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        65 

"House  of  God"  (Gen.  28:19).  A  striking  illustration  is 
the  name  Isra-e/,  which  is  said  to  mean  "God  strives"  (Gen. 
32:28).  Consideration  of  this  term  el  introduces  one  of  the 
most  important  aspects  of  the  Bible  problem. 

In  the  first  place,  we  would  seem  to  have  good  grounds 
for  supposing  that  the  term  el  (the  singular  form)  is  the  term 
which  we  always  translate  "  God."  This  assumption,  however, 
is  not  correct.  For  it  is  not  the  singular  el,  but  the  plural 
elohim,  DTTbx,  which  is  most  frequently  rendered  "God." 
The  singular  form  occurs  only  about  200  times  in  the  Old 
Testament;  while  the  plural  is  found  over  2,500  times.  The 
syllable  im  is  a  plural  suffix  in  Hebrew;  so  that  if  we  have 
regard  to  grammatical  form,  the  word  elohim  should  always 
be  rendered  "gods."  This,  however,  is  wrong  again.  For 
in  the  picturesque  Hebrew  usage,  the  plural  sometimes  has 
the  force  of  the  superlative  mode,  heightening  the  function 
of  the  singular,  but  not  changing  its  number.  In  most  cases 
where  the  plural  form  elohim  occurs,  the  reference  is  not  to 
many  gods  but  to  one  God.  Thus,  in  the  opening  sentence  of 
Genesis,  we  read  that  elohim  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth.  In  this  case  the  context  proves  that  the  writer  intends 
the  singular  usage.  And  since  the  singular  form  el  indicates 
"power,"  the  use  of  the  plural  in  this  passage  means  that 
the  work  of  creation  was  accomplished  by  Superlative  Power, 
i.e.,  God,  viewed  as  one  Being.  But  in  other  cases,  precisely 
the  same  plural  form,  elohim,  has  the  plural  sense.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  words  of  David  in  the  following  passage: 
"They  have  driven  me  out  this  day  .  .  .  .  ,  saying,  Go, 
serve  other  elohim"  (I  Sam.  26:19).  Here  the  word  is  cor- 
rectly translated  "gods"  by  all  the  versions;  yet  it  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  combination  of  letters  that  occurs  in  the 
opening  sentence  of  Genesis.  We  have  to  judge  the  meaning 
hi  many  instances  from  the  context  alone.  While  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  most  cases,  the  word  is  frequently  used  in 


66  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ways  that  embarrass  translators  who  seek  to  make  popular 
versions.  But  the  difficulty  of  those  who  try  to  make  transla- 
tions that  can  be  understood  by  the  wayfaring  man  is  the 
opportunity  of  purely  scientific  scholars.  Consideration  of 
these  embarrassing  elohim  passages  will  carry  us  farther 
into  the  subject  before  us  in  this  chapter.  The  first  that  we 
shall  take  up  under  this  head  occurs  in  the  account  of  King 
Saul's  visit  to  the  witch  of  Endor,  an  ancient  spirit  medium. 
The  king  wanted  to  consult  the  ghost  of  the  prophet  Samuel, 
who  had  recently  died.  We  are  not  concerned  here  to  discuss 
the  reliability  of  this  narrative  as  literal  history,  but  merely 
to  examine  the  ideas  attaching  to  the  term  elohim,  which 
occurs  in  a  very  startling  way  in  this  remarkable  story.  We 
reproduce  a  part  of  the  passage: 

Then  said  Saul  unto  his  slaves,  Seek  me  a  woman  that  hath  a  famil- 
iar spirit,  that  I  may  go  to  her,  and  enquire  of  her.  And  his  slaves 
said  to  him,  Behold,  there  is  a  woman  that  hath  a  familiar  spirit  at 
Endor.  And  Saul  disguised  himself,  and  put  on  other  raiment,  and 
went,  he  and  two  men  with  him.  And  they  came  to  the  woman  by 
night.  And  he  said,  Divine  unto  me,  I  pray  thee,  by  the  familiar 

spirit,  and  bring  me  up  whomsoever  I  shall  name  unto  thee Then 

said  the  woman,  Whom  shall  I  bring  up  unto  thee?  And  he  said, 
Bring  me  up  Samuel.  And  when  the  woman  saw  Samuel,  she  cried 

with  a  loud  voice And  the  King  said  unto  her,  What  seest  thou  ? 

And  the  woman  said  unto  Saul,  I  see  elohim  coming  up  out  of  the  earth. 
And  he  said  unto  her,  What  form  is  he  of  ?  And  she  said,  An  old  man 
cometh  up;  and  he  is  covered  with  a  robe.  And  Saul  perceived  that 
it  was  Samuel.  And  he  bowed,  with  his  face  to  the  ground,  and  did 
obeisance.  And  Samuel  said  to  Saul,  Why  hast  thou  disquieted  me 
to  bring  me  up?  (I  Sam.  28:7  flf.). 

In  modern  versions  prepared  for  the  people  at  large,  a  case 
like  this  tries  very  sorely  the  patience  of  the  translators; 
and  the  result  serves  only  to  distract  the  devout.  In  the  King 
James  Bible,  the  translators  make  the  woman  say,  "I  saw 
gods  coming  up."  This  is  followed  immediately  by  the  ques- 
tion from  Saul,  "What  form  is  he  of  ?"  or  "What  is  his  form  ?" 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        67 

But  if  the  word  elohim  should  be  rendered  "gods,"  as  the 
King  James  Bible  has  it,  then  Saul's  question  should  be, 
"What  is  their  form?"  The  Hebrew  text,  however,  will 
not  permit  this,  for  it  goes  on  to  talk  about  one  person,  i.e., 
Samuel.  Accordingly,  both  Revised  versions,  English  and 
American,  change  the  main  text  of  the  translation  to  the  sin- 
gular, and  make  the  woman  say,  "I  see  a  god  coming  up," 
in  this  way  securing  grammatical  agreement  with  the  ques- 
tion, "What  form  is  he  of?"  But  the  Revisers  thereupon 
place  "gods"  hi  the  margin.  So  that  the  wayfaring  man  is 
left  in  much  perplexity.  Not  only  so;  but  it  surprises  him 
to  encounter  the  term  "god,"  or  "gods,"  in  the  Bible  with 
reference  to  a  human  being.  Leaving  this  matter  open,  we 
turn  to  another  instructive  case  in  the  same  category,  as 
follows: 

And  it  came  to  pass,  when  men  began  to  multiply  on  the  face  of  the 
earth,  and  daughters  were  born  unto  them,  that  the  sons  of  the  elohim 
saw  the  daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair;  and  they  took  them 
wives  of  all  which  they  chose.  There  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those 
days;  and  also,  after  that,  when  the  sons  of  the  elohim  came  in  unto 
the  daughters  of  men,  and  they  bare  children  to  them,  the  same  were  the 
mighty  men  which  were  of  old,  the  men  of  renown  (Gen.  6:  i,  2,  4). 

In  this  case,  the  King  James  Bible  and  the  Revised  versions 
alike  turn  the  Hebrew  phrase  "the  sons  of  the  elohim"  into 
"  the  sons  of  God  " ;  and  all  marginal  instruction  for  the  benefit 
of  the  laity  is  omitted.  While  we  cannot  be  dogmatic  on  this 
point,  it  is  probable  that  the  phrase  should  be  translated  "the 
sons  of  the  gods,"  rather  than  "the  sons  of  [the  One]  God,"  as 
our  English  versions  render  it.  What  we  have  here,  apparently, 
is  a  fragment  of  primitive  epic,  standing  on  the  same  plane 
of  culture  with  the  passage  quoted  from  Samuel.  It  is  a 
bit  of  ancient  mythology  which  came  down  to  the  editor  of 
Genesis  from  Semitic  heathenism.  The  sons  of  the  gods 
cohabit  with  the  daughters  of  men,  and  beget  a  progeny  of 


68  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

giants.  Precisely  the  same  thing  takes  place  in  the  Greek 
Bible,  the  Iliad,  where  the  heroes  have  a  double  ancestry, 
human  and  divine.1 

The  most  common  form  of  primitive  religion  is  worship  of 
gods  pertaining  to  family  and  clan  groups. — Family  religion 
at  first  appears  to  be  ancestor  worship.  This  is  well  repre- 
sented by  the  Chinese,  with  their  "ancestral  tablets," 
before  which  they  bow  in  worship  and  leave  offerings  of  food. 
In  ancient  Rome  we  find  the  "Lares,"  or  private  family 
gods.  Concerning  these,  the  historian  Mommsen  writes: 

Of  all  the  worships  of  Rome  that  which  perhaps  had  the  deepest 
hold  was  the  worship  of  the  tutelary  spirits  that  presided  in  and  over 
the  household  and  the  store-chamber.  These  were  in  family  worship 
the  gods  of  the  household  in  the  strict  sense,  the  Lases  or  Lares,  to 
whom  their  share  of  the  family  meal  was  regularly  assigned  [as  among 
the  Chinese],  and  before  whom  it  was,  even  in  the  time  of  Cato  the  Elder, 
the  first  duty  of  the  father  of  the  household  on  returning  home  to  per- 
form his  devotions.  In  the  ranking  of  the  gods,  however,  these  spirits 
of  the  house  and  of  the  field  occupied  the  lowest  rather  than  the  highest 
place.2 

A  careful  study  of  primitive  religion  has  been  made  at 
first  hand  by  Rev.  Duff  Macdonald,  a  Presbyterian  missionary 
in  central  Africa.  His  work  among  the  Soudanese  natives 
brought  him  into  contact  with  ideas  and  practices  that  carry 
us  far  back  into  the  atmosphere  of  primitive  religion.  He 
shows  that  the  prayers  and  offerings  of  the  natives  are  directed 
toward  the  spirits  of  household  chiefs  who  have  passed  away. 
"It  is  here,"  he  says,  "that  we  find  the  great  center  of  the 
native  religion.  The  spirits  of  the  dead  are  the  gods  of  the 
living."  In  view  of  such  facts,  we  now  begin  to  see  why  it  is 
that  primitive  religion  always  regards  the  gods  as  actual 

1  It  is  true  that  the  definite  article,  when  placed  thus,  is  intended  sometimes  to 
indicate  the  one,  true  God,  as  in  Isa.  37:16  and  45 : 18.     But  would  any  Hebrew  scholar 
assimilate  these  lofty  spiritual  passages  in  Isaiah  with  the  sensually  suggestive  passage 
in  Gen.,  chap.  6  ? 

2  Mommsen,  History  of  Rome  (New  York),  Vol.  I,  pp.  213  f.     (Italics  ours.) 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        69 

members  of  the  social  groups  that  worship  them.  Mr.  Mac- 
donald  writes : 

In  all  our  translations  of  Scripture  where  we  found  the  word  GOD 
we  used  Mulungu;  but  this  word  is  chiefly  used  by  the  natives  as  a 
general  name  for  spirit.  The  spirit  of  a  deceased  man  is  called  his 
Mulungu,  and  all  the  prayers  and  offerings  of  the  living  are  presented 
to  such  spirits  of  the  dead.  It  is  here  that  we  find  the  great  center  of 
the  native  religion.  The  spirits  of  the  dead  are  the  gods  of  the  living. 
Where  are  these  gods  found?  At  the  grave?  No.  The  villagers 
shrink  from  yonder  gloomy  place  that  lies  far  beyond  their  fields  on  the 

bleak  mountain  side Their  god  is  not  the  body  in  the  grave,  but 

the  spirit,  and  they  seek  this  spirit  at  the  place  where  their  departed 
kinsman  last  lived  among  them.  It  is  the  great  tree  at  the  verandah 
of  the  dead  man's  house  that  is  their  temple;  and  if  no  tree  grow  here 

they  erect  a  little  shade,  and  there  perform  their  simple  rites The 

spirit  of  an  old  chief  may  have  a  whole  mountain  for  his  residence,  but 
he  dwells  chiefly  on  the  cloudy  summit.  There  he  sits  to  receive  the 
worship  of  his  votaries,  and  to  send  down  the  refreshing  showers  in 

answer  to  their  prayers It  is  not  usual  for  anyone  to  approach  the 

gods  except  the  chief  of  the  village.  It  is  his  relatives  that  are  the 
village  gods.  Everyone  that  lives  in  the  village  recognizes  these  gods; 
but  if  anyone  remove  to  another  village  he  changes  his  gods.  He 

recognizes  now  the  gods  of  his  new  chief Ordinary  ghosts  are  soon 

forgotten  with  the  generation  that  knew  them.  Not  so  a  few  select 
spirits,  the  Caesars,  the  Napoleons,  the  Charlemagnes,  the  Timurs  of 
savage  empires.  A  great  chief  that  has  been  successful  in  his  wars 
does  not  pass  out  of  memory  so  soon.  He  may  become  the  god  of  a 
mountain  or  a  lake,  and  may  receive  homage  as  a  local  deity  long  after 
his  own  descendants  have  been  driven  from  the  spot.  When  there  is 
a  supplication  for  rain  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  pray  not  so  much 
to  their  own  forefathers  as  to  the  god  of  yonder  mountain  on  whose 
shoulders  the  great  rain-clouds  repose.1 

The  idols  of  Israel  and  other  peoples  had  the  character  of 
images  representing  the  gods. — In  primitive  religion  it  is  cus- 
tomary to  prepare  some  physical  token  or  symbol  toward 
which  the  worshiper  may  direct  his  prayers  and  offerings. 

1  Macdonald,  Africana;  Allen,  Evolution  of  the  Idea  of  God  (New  York,  1897), 
pp.  25-28.  (Italics  ours.) 


70  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Thus  the  idols  of  paganism  originate;  and  they  take  many 
forms.  Sometimes  the  dead  body  of  a  chief  is  embalmed  and 
worshiped.  In  ancient  Egypt  the  gods  were  thus  frequently 
represented  by  a  mummy.  In  that  country  the  god  Osiris 
was  said  to  have  lived  on  the  earth  in  early  ages,  and  to  have 
been  killed  by  his  brother.  Concerning  this  god,  Professor 
Breasted  writes : 

The  original  home  of  Osiris  was  ....  in  the  Delta;  but  Abydos, 
in  Upper  Egypt,  early  gained  a  reputation  of  peculiar  sanctity,  because 
the  head  of  Osiris  was  buried  there.  He  always  appeared  as  a  closely 
swathed  figure,  enthroned  as  a  Pharaoh  or  merely  a  curious  pillar,  a 
fetish  surviving  from  his  prehistoric  worship.  The  external  mani- 
festations and  the  symbols  with  which  the  Egyptian  clothed  these  gods 
are  of  the  simplest  character  and  they  show  the  primitive  simplicity 
of  the  age  in  which  these  deities  arose.1 

The  Israelites  had  family  gods,  represented  by  images.— 
Bearing  in  mind  the  facts  adduced  above,  we  shall  now  con- 
sider the  traces  of  household,  or  family,  religion  in  Israel. 
The  private  gods  of  Israel  were  known  as  terapkim.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  this  is  a  plural  form;  but  it  may  indicate 
many  gods  or  one,  as  its  usage  is  analogous  to  that  of  elohim. 
We  find  a  very  instructive  example  of  household  religion  in 
the  family  of  a  certain  Micah,  an  Israelite  of  the  upper  class, 
living  in  the  highlands  of  Ephraim.  His  date  is  not  known; 
but  he  is  said  to  have  lived  in  the  "Judges"  period,  before 
the  time  of  the  monarchy.  We  quote  as  follows: 

And  there  was  a  man  of  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim  whose  name 

was  Micah And  the  man  Micah  had  a  house  of  elohim  [gods],  and 

he  made  an  ephod  and  teraphim,  and  consecrated  one  of  his  sons,  who 

became  his  priest And  there  was  a  young  man  out  of  Bethlehem- 

Judah  ....  who  was  a  Levite And  the  man  departed  out 

of  ....  Bethlehem- Judah,  to  sojourn  where  he  could  find  a  place; 

and  he  came  to  ....  the  house  of  Micah,  as  he  journeyed 

And  the  Levite  was  content  to  dwell  with  the  man And  Micah 

1  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt  (New  York,  1905),  p.  60. 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        71 

consecrated  the  Levite;  and  the  young  man  became  his  priest  (Judg., 
chap.  17). 

The  narrative  in  Judges  goes  on  to  relate  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  tribe  of  Dan,  consisting  of  six  hundred 
warriors,  robbed  Micah  of  his  priest  and  his  teraphim.  At 
first  the  Levite  objected;  but  the  Danites  bade  him  hold 
his  peace,  asking  him,  "Is  it  better  for  thee  to  be  a  priest 
unto  the  house  of  one  man  or  to  be  a  priest  unto  a  tribe  and 
a  family  in  Israel  ?"  No  answer  to  this  question  is  recorded; 
but  the  story  continues,  "And  the  priest's  heart  was  glad; 
and  he  took  the  ephod  and  the  teraphim  and  the  graven 
image,  and  went  hi  the  midst  of  the  people"  (Judg.,  chap. 
1 8).  Here  we  find  the  cult  of  the  teraphim  in  a  private  family, 
from  which  it  is  appropriated  by  a  large  clan.  Another 
trace  of  the  teraphim  is  found  in  the  home  of  David,  as  fol- 
lows: 

And  Saul  sent  messengers  unto  David's  house,  to  watch  him,  ?nd  to 
slay  him  in  the  morning.  And  Michal,  David's  wife,  told  him,  saying, 
If  thou  save  not  thy  life  tonight,  tomorrow  thou  wilt  be  slain.  So 
Michal  let  David  down  through  the  window.  And  he  went  and  fled 
and  escaped.  And  Michal  took  the  teraphim  and  laid  it  in  the  bed, 
and  put  a  pillow  of  goat's  hair  at  the  head  thereof,  and  covered  it  with 
the  clothes.  And  when  Saul  sent  messengers  to  take  David,  she  said, 
He  is  sick.  And  Saul  sent  the  messengers  to  see  David,  saying,  Bring 
him  up  to  me  in  the  bed,  that  I  may  slay  him.  And  when  the  mes- 
sengers came  in,  behold  the  teraphim  was  in  the  bed,  with  the  pillow  of 
goat's  hair  at  the  head  thereof  (I  Sam.  19:11-16). 

From  this  passage,  we  learn  that  the  teraphim  was  an  image 
having  a  human  form,  or  it  could  not  have  been  put  to  the 
use  indicated.  We  quote  another  instance: 

Now  Laban  was  gone  to  shear  his  sheep;    and  Rachel  stole  the 

teraphim  that  were  her  father's And  Laban  said  to  Jacob  .... 

Wherefore  hast  thou  stolen  my  gods  [elohim]?  And  Jacob  answered 
and  said  to  Laban  ....  With  whomsoever  thou  findest  thy  gods,  he 
shall  not  live For  Jacob  knew  not  that  Rachel  had  stolen 


72  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

them Now  Rachel  had  taken  the  teraphim  and  put  them  in 

the  camel's  saddle,  and  sat  upon  them.    And  Laban  felt  all  about  the 
tent,  but  found  them  not  (Gen.,  chap.  31). 

The  real  nature  of  the  teraphim  is  obscure  to  us.  They 
were  clearly  a  species  of  elohim,  or  god.  They  were  images 
having  a  human  form.  They  were  a  part  of  the  private, 
household  religion  that  is  found  in  all  ancient  and  primitive 
societies.  Before  them  were  cast  lots  (Ezek.  21:21).  Their 
worship  could  be  transferred  from  the  auspices  of  a  private 
family  to  those  of  a  clan,  as  in  the  case  of  Micah  and  the 
Danites.  But  beyond  these  considerations  we  are  in  the 
dark  as  to  the  family  cult  in  Israel. 

Next  above  the  family  gods  in  Israel  were  other  local  gods, 
the  Baalim,  etc. — Above  this  humble  form  of  worship  there 
developed  a  great  superstructure  of  religious  institutions 
which  commanded  the  devotion  of  many  families  in  common. 
The  genesis  of  these  more  extensive  and  widely  practiced 
cults  is  easily  understood,  for  we  can  often  see  them 
in  process  of  construction.  Under  favorable  circumstances, 
a  god  who  has  but  few  adherents  may  attract  a  wider  circle 
of  worshipers.  It  should  be  understood  that  a  god  can  rise 
to  leadership  in  the  same  way  a  man  goes  up  in  the  social 
scale.  A  number  of  clans  may  unite  against  their  enemies, 
taking  the  god  of  the  leading  clan  as  an  object  of  common 
worship  within  the  confederation.  The  establishment  of 
wider  cults  outside  the  limits  of  the  household  group  does 
not  bring  with  it  suppression  of  the  humbler  forms  of  religion; 
for  several  degrees,  or  grades,  of  religious  institutions  can 
exist  within  a  community. 

After  the  Israelites  entered  Canaan,  many  of  them  adopted 
from  the  Amorite  inhabitants  a  form  of  religion  that  stood  out- 
side the  limits  of  private,  or  family  worship.  This  was  the  cult 
of  the  Baals,  or  Baalim,  already  noticed.  We  have  seen  that 
the  term  baal,  in  the  singular,  indicates  the  master  and  pro- 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        73 

prietor  of  the  Israelite  family.  In  the  same  way,  the  local 
Baals  of  the  Amorites  were  looked  upon  as  the  divine  owners 
and  masters  of  different  parts  of  Caanan.  Those  of  the 
Israelites  who  intermarried  with  the  Amorites,  and  took  up 
farming — especially  in  Ephraim — adopted  the  worship  of  the 
Baals  quite  naturally  as  a  part  of  the  legitimate  system  of 
religion.  We  shall  recur  to  the  highly  important  subject  of 
Baal  worship  in  a  later  part  of  our  study. 

Above  the  worship  of  the  teraphim  and  Baalim  stood  the 
cult  of  Yahweh. — We  now  come  to  the  widest  form  of  Israel's 
religion — to  the  cult  which  overtopped  that  of  all  the  local 
gods  of  the  people  of  Canaan.  When  the  Israelites  finally 
succeeded  in  forming  a  national  social  group  under  the  kings, 
the  cult  of  Yahweh  became  the  national  religion.  We  cannot 
now  learn  how  general  and  widely  diffused  the  worship  of 
Yahweh  was  at  the  time  of  the  invasion.  We  do  not  know 
how  many  clans  took  part  in  this  movement;  nor  how  many 
of  the  clans  which  the  Old  Testament  reckons  to  Israel  in 
the  desert  were  formed  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  But 
it  is  clear  that  certain  people  called  Israelites  brought  this 
cult  into  Canaan  from  the  desert;  and  that  around  this  cult 
the  Israelites  and  the  Amorites  gradually  fused  into  a  nation 
whereof  Yahweh  became  the  divine  symbol. 

The  idea  of  Yahweh,  as  found  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the 
Bible,  is  very  primitive.  He  was  at  first  worshiped  in  Israel 
as  a  local  Semitic  deity.  Not  only  were  the  Baals  of  the 
Amorites  worshiped  at  the  same  time  with  him;  but  the 
Israelites  also  admitted  the  reality  and  power  of  the  gods 
of  other  foreign  peoples.  His  earlier,  local  character  comes 
distinctly  into  view  as  we  examine  the  more  ancient  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament.  A  good  illustration  is  found  in  a  speech 
attributed  to  one  of  the  Israelite  chiefs  in  the  Judges  period, 
in  which  he  addresses  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  east  of  the 
Jordan,  to  this  effect:  "So  now,  Yahweh,  the  god  of  Israel, 


74  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

hath  dispossessed  the  Amorites  from  before  his  people  Israel, 
and  shouldst  thou  possess  them  ?  Wilt  not  thou  possess  that 
which  Chemosh  thy  god  giveth  thee  to  possess  ?  "  (Judg.  1 1 : 23, 
24) .  The  argument  here  urged  by  the  Israelite  chief,  is  based  on 
the  "divine  right  of  conquest."  Israel  is  entitled  to  keep  the 
territory  that  has  been  won  by  the  help  of  Yahweh;  and,  in 
the  same  way,  the  Ammonites  ought  to  keep  the  territory 
that  has  been  given  to  them  by  their  god  Chemosh.  This 
foreign  god  appears  to  have  been  worshiped  also  by  the 
Moabites,  who  occupied  neighboring  lands  east  of  the  Jordan. 
He  appears  in  another  passage:  "Woe  to  thee,  Moab:  Thou 
art  undone,  O  people  of  Chemosh.  He  hath  given  his  sons 
as  fugitives,  and  his  daughters  into  captivity"  (Num.  21:29). 
The  early  Israelites  believed  in  the  reality  and  power  of 
Chemosh  and  other  foreign  gods  just  as  they  believed  in  the 
reality  of  Yahweh. 

Another  instructive  reference  to  the  god  Chemosh  is  found 
in  the  account  of  a  battle  between  Israel  and  Moab.  The 
conflict  was  going  against  the  Moabites:  "And  when  the 
king  of  Moab  saw  that  the  battle  was  too  sore  for  him,  he  took 
with  him  seven  hundred  men  that  drew  sword,  to  break 
through  unto  the  king  of  Edom,  but  they  could  not."  So 
closely  were  the  Moabites  besieged  in  their  capital  city  that 
they  found  it  impossible  to  break  out  and  escape.  Goaded 
to  desperation,  King  Mesha  now  resolved  upon  a  measure  of 
the  last  extremity:  "Then  he  took  his  eldest  son,  that  should 
have  reigned  in  his  stead,  and  offered  him  for  a  burnt-offering 
upon  the  wall."  This  was  done  with  all  solemnity  upon  the 
wall  of  the  besieged  city,  in  full  view  of  the  Israelites,  who 
knew  just  what  it  meant.  The  king  was  giving  up  to  the  god 
Chemosh  his  eldest  son  in  the  hope  that  the  god  of  Moab  would 
thus  be  stimulated  to  fight  harder  for  his  people,  and  pour 
the  vials  of  his  wrath  upon  Israel.  After  giving  full  details 
up  to  this  point  the  Bible  narrative  ends  abruptly  in  embarrass- 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        75 

ment.  King  Mesha  had  seized  the  "psychological  moment" 
for  his  awful  sacrifice.  "And  there  came  great  wrath  upon 
Israel;  and  they  departed  from  him  and  returned  to  their 
own  land"  (II  Kings  3:26,  27). 

The  gods  of  Moab  and  Israel  reappear  in  the  background 
of  the  Book  of  Ruth.  An  Israelite  widow,  Naomi,  who  had 
been  living  in  Moab,  set  out  to  return  to  Israel.  Seeing  her 
two  daughters-in-law  foUowing,  she  bade  them  return.  One 
of  them  obeyed;  but  the  other,  whose  name  was  Ruth,  would 
not.  Naomi  thereupon  said  to  Ruth:  "Behold,  thy  sister- 
in-law  is  gone  back  unto  her  people  and  unto  her  god.  Return 
thou  after  thy  sister-in-law "  (Ruth  1:15).  In  other  words, 
Naomi  urged  her  Moabite  daughters-in-law  to  return  to  their 
people  and  to  the  worship  of  Chemosh,  the  god  of  Moab. 
But  Ruth  replied:  "Where  thou  goest,  I  will  go;  and  where 
thou  lodgest,  I  will  lodge.  Thy  people  shall  be  my  people, 
and  thy  god  my  god."  From  these  words,  the  older  com- 
mentators and  interpreters  of  the  Bible  concluded  that  Ruth 
was  a  convinced  adherent  of  Yahweh,  the  god  of  Israel.  But 
the  little  story  gets  its  point,  not  from  Ruth's  devotion  to 
Yahweh,  but  from  her  attachment  to  Naomi.  She  empha- 
sizes that  whatever  people,  or  god,  or  land,  is  chosen  by 
Naomi  will  be  acceptable  to  Ruth.  So,  in  the  passage  already 
quoted  from  Rev.  Mr.  Macdonald's  Africana,  we  read,  "If 
anyone  remove  to  another  village  he  changes  his  gods.  He 
recognizes  now  the  gods  of  his  new  chief."  Exactly  the  same 
attitude  was  taken  by  Ruth  and  Naomi;  and  any  other 
interpretation  does  violence  to  this  beautiful  tale  of  ancient 
Israel. 

Our  object  in  this  chapter  is  to  become  acquainted  with 
the  atmosphere  of  primitive  religion,  so  that  we  may  estimate 
faithfully  the  development  of  Israel's  religion  in  connection 
with  the  social  process.  The  Moabites  were  neighbors  of 
Israel;  and  anything  that  illustrates  then*  practices  and 


76  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ideas  helps  us  to  recover  and  interpret  the  social  situation  in 
ancient  Israel.  To  this  end,  we  shall  find  it  instructive  to 
examine  a  few  sentences  from  the  famous  "Moabite  Stone." 
This  remarkable  object  was  discovered  hi  1868  in  the  land  of 
Moab.  Its  language  is  fundamentally  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Old  Testament  Hebrew.  The  translation  of  the  inscription, 
which  we  quote  in  part,  is  by  Professor  Driver,  of  Oxford 
University: 

I  am  Mesha,  son  Chemosh,  king  of  Moab.  .  And  I  made  this  high- 
place  for  Chemosh  .  .  because  he  had  saved  me  from  all  the  assailants.  . 
Omri,  king  of  Israel,  afflicted  Moab  for  many  days  because  Chemosh  was 
angry  with  his  land.  .  And  Chemosh  said  unto  me,  Go,  take  Nebo 
against  Israel.  And  I  went  by  night,  and  fought  against  it  from  the 
break  of  dawn  until  noon.  And  I  took  it  and  slew  the  whole  of  it. 
....  And  I  took  thence  the  vessels  of  Yahweh,  and  I  dragged  them 
before  Chemosh.  And  the  king  of  Israel  had  built  Yahas  and  abode 
in  it  while  he  fought  against  me.  But  Chemosh  drave  him  out  from 

before  me And  Chemosh  said  unto  me,  Go  down,  fight  against 

Horonen And  I  went  down.1 

The  inscription  explains  itself.  King  Mesha  and  his  god 
Chemosh  have  been  previously  introduced  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  attitude  of  the  Moabites  toward  Chemosh  is 
the  same  as  the  earlier  attitude  of  the  Israelites  toward 
Yahweh.  Chemosh  "saves"  the  Moabites.  He  is  "angry 
with  his  land."  He  "said  unto  them"  to  do  certain  specific 
things.  He  "  drave  out "  the  enemy.  The  general  atmosphere 
of  the  inscription  is  so  much  like  that  of  the  older  documents 
in  the  Bible,  that  if  Israelite  names  were  substituted  for 
the  Moabite  names,  one  might  suppose  the  inscription  to  be 
taken  out  of  the  Bible  itself. 

We  have  seen  that  removal  from  a  country  was  thought 
to  be  equivalent  to  leaving  the  presence  of  the  god  of  the  land, 
as  in  the  case  of  Ruth  and  Naomi,  who  thought  it  a  matter 

1  Encyclopaedia  Biblica  (New  York,  1902),  Vol.  Ill,  cols.  3045  and  3046.  (Italics 
ours.) 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        77 

of  course  to  worship  the  deity  of  any  people  among  whom 
they  took  up  their  abode.  This  idea  is  illustrated  impres- 
sively by  words  attributed  to  David  at  the  time  King  Saul 
was  pursuing  him  to  take  his  life:  "They  have  driven  me  out 
this  day  that  I  should  not  cleave  unto  the  inheritance  of 
Yahweh,  saying,  Go  serve  other  gods.  Now  therefore  let  not 
my  blood  fall  to  the  earth  away  from  the  presence  of  Yahweh" 
(I  Sam.  26:19,  20). J 

In  the  early  period,  the  will  of  Yahweh  was  discovered 
mainly  by  the  sacred  lot — "Urim  and  Thummim." — The  most 
common  way  of  "inquiring  of  Yahweh"  was  by  means 
of  the  ephod.  "And  David  said  to  Abiathar  the  priest, 
Bring  me  hither  the  ephod.  And  Abiathar  brought  thither  the 
ephod  to  David.  And  David  inquired  of  Yahweh"  (I  Sam. 
30:7,  8).  What  was  the  ephod?  If  we  turn  to  the  story  of 
Gideon,  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  we  find  that  an  ephod  was 
made  of  metal. 

And  Gideon  said  unto  them,  I  would  make  a  request  of  you,  that  ye 
would  give  me  every  man  the  ear-rings  of  his  spoil.  For  they  had  golden 

ear-rings And  they  answered,   We  will  willingly  give  them. 

And  they  spread  a  garment,  and  did  cast  therein  every  man  the  ear- 
rings of  his  spoil.  And  the  weight  of  the  golden  ear-rings  that  he 

requested  was  a  thousand  and  seven  hundred  shekels  of  gold 

And  Gideon  made  an  ephod  thereof,  and  put  it  in  his  city,  even  in  Ophrah 
(Judg.  8:24-27). 

The  ephod,  then,  was  made  of  metal.  But  what  kind  of 
an  object  was  it  ?  And  in  what  way  was  it  used  in  the  pro- 
cess of  "consulting  Yahweh"  ?  The  details  are  suggested  by 
a  passage  in  the  First  Book  of  Samuel,  which  carries  us  another 
step  into  this  interesting  subject: 

And  Saul  said,  Draw  nigh  hither,  all  ye  chiefs  of  the  people,  and 
know  and  see  wherein  this  sin  hath  been  this  day.  For,  as  Yahweh 

1  This  translation  is  given  by  the  English  and  American  Revised  versions.  The 
King  James  Bible  renders  the  second  sentence,  out  of  harmony  with  the  thought 
and  atmosphere  of  the  first,  as  follows:  "Let  not  my  blood  fall  to  the  earth  before  the 
face  of  the  LORD." 


78  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

liveth,  who  saveth  Israel,  though  it  be  in  Jonathan  my  son,  he  shall 
surely  die.  But  there  was  not  a  man  among  all  the  people  that  answered 
him.  Then  said  he  unto  all  Israel,  Be  ye  on  one  side;  and  I  and  my 
son  Jonathan  will  be  on  the  other  side.  And  the  people  said  unto  Saul, 
Do  what  seemeth  good  unto  thee.  Therefore,  Saul  said  unto  Yahweh, 
the  god  of  Israel,  Give  a  perfect  lot.  And  Jonathan  and  Saul  were 
taken;  but  the  people  escaped.  And  Saul  said,  Cast  between  me  and 
Jonathan  my  son.  And  Jonathan  was  taken  (I  Sam.  14:38-42). 

From  this  passage,  we  learn  that  when  people  "inquired 
of  Yahweh,"  they  cast  lots.  In  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
same  passage  (the  Septuagint),  we  get  a  still  clearer  view  of 
the  process  of  casting  lots.  For  in  that  version,  Saul  asks 
that,  if  evil  be  in  him  or  his  son,  Yahweh  will  give  Urim; 
and  that,  if  evil  be  in  the  people  of  Israel,  Yahweh  will 
give  Thummim.  Going  back  to  the  Hebrew  text,  we  find 
that  there  were  three  ways  of  consulting  Yahweh:  "And 
when  Saul  inquired  of  Yahweh,  Yahweh  answered  him  not, 
neither  by  dreams,  nor  by  Urim,  nor  by  prophets"  (I  Sam. 
28:6). 

We  now  have  before  us  the  materials  for  answering  our 
question:  The  Urim  and  Thummim  were  a  kind  of  sacred 
dice,  cast  or  shaken  before  a  metallic  image  called  an  ephod. 
In  the  tune  of  Judges  and  Samuel,  these  objects  were  a  part 
of  the  regular  machinery  of  religion.  They  were  used  by  all 
the  leading  men,  like  David,  Saul,  and  Gideon.  While  the 
priest,  holding  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  stood  waiting  before 
the  ephod-image,  the  inquiring  worshiper  would  call  upon 
Yahweh,  saying,  "Show  the  right!"  or,  "Give  a  perfect 
lot!"  just  as  Saul  did  in  the  passage  quoted.  Then  the 
inquirer  would  bid  the  priest  to  cast  the  lot.  The  questions 
addressed  to  the  oracle  were  always  put  in  a  form  that  could 
be  answered  "Yes"  or  "No"  (e.g.,  I  Sam.  23:9-12;  30:7-8). 
The  process  of  consulting  Yahweh  could  be  carried  on  at  an 
established  sanctuary;  or,  if  that  were  out  of  the  question, 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        79 

the  priest  could  bring  the  religious  equipment  with  him  to  the 
inquirer.  Thus,  we  read:  "It  came  to  pass,  when  Abiathar 
....  fled  to  David  to  Keilah,  that  he  came  down  with  an 
ephod  in  his  hand"  (I  Sam.  23:6). 

This  is  as  near  as  we  can  come  to  a  description  of  the  im- 
portant process  of  "consulting"  Yahweh  in  his  character 
as  a  local  Semitic  deity  in  ancient  Israel.  The  reason  we 
have  so  much  difficulty  in  getting  a  clear  idea  of  the  subject 
is  very  simple:  The  Bible  was  not  written  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  instruction  about  such  things.  It  was  made  for  an 
entirely  different  end,  with  other  objects  in  view  (see  supra, 
chap,  iv,  "The  Making  of  the  Old  Testament").  Hence  we 
should  not  be  surprised  if  it  is  necessary  to  go  on  the  track  of  a 
subject  through  a  great  many  chapters  and  books  of  the  Bible, 
comparing  a  large  number  of  passages  and  verses  in  order 
to  reach  the  facts.  This  matter  of  the  ephod  illustrates 
very  well  the  confusion  between  early  and  late  practices.  Most 
readers  of  the  Bible  have  the  impression  that  the  ephod  in 
ancient  Israel  was  always  an  article  of  dress,  worn  by  the  high 
priest;]  while  the  Urim  and  Thummim  have  not  been  con- 
nected with  anything  definite  in  the  lay  mind.  This  is  because 
we  get  our  ideas  from  the  later  and  more  impressive  books 
of  the  Bible,  which  are  placed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Old  Testament.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  priest  in  later 
Judaism  (i.e.,  after  the  Babylonian  exile)  actually  wore  an 
article  of  dress  called  the  "ephod";  while  the  mysterious 
Urrm  and  Thummim  were  kept  in  a  pocket  on  the  front  of  the 
ephod,  but  were  no  longer  used  for  casting  lots  in  the  old 
heathen  fashion  (Exod.  28:28-30).  The  older  practice  in 
Judges  and  Samuel  was  followed  by  the  leading  men  of  the 
period;  and  it  was  condemned  only  by  such  men  as  the  late 
editor  through  whom  the  Book  of  Judges  was  compiled.1 

'"And  all  Israel  played  the  harlot  after  it  .  .  .  .  ,  and  it  became  a  snare  to 
Gideon  and  his  house"  (Judg.  8: 27). 


8o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Bible  tradition  suggests  that  the  cult  of  Yahweh,  in  its 
earlier  form,  did  not  originate  in  Israel. — Most  religions  of 
antiquity  look  upon  the  gods  as  the  actual,  physical  ances- 
tors of  their  worshipers,  connected  with  them  by  ties  of 
actual  kinship.  But  the  Bible  declares  that  Israel  and  Yahweh 
became  connected  by  a  covenant,  which  was  made  at  a  specified 
moment  of  time  and  in  a  particular  place.  In  the  words 
of  Hosea,  "I  am  Yahweh  thy  god  from  the  land  of  Egypt" 
(Hos.  12:9).  In  accordance  with  this,  we  are  told  by  the 
Book  of  Exodus  that  Israel  and  Yahweh  entered  into  a  solemn 
covenant  at  Mount  Horeb-Sinai,  just  after  the  exodus  from 
Egyptian  territory.  The  familiar  word  "testament,"  in  one 
of  its  usages,  indicates  a  covenant;  and  in  this  way  it  finds 
application  to  the  Bible.  "I  will  take  you  to  me  for  a  people; 
and  I  will  be  to  you  a  god "  (Exod.  6:7).  "And  thou,  Yahweh, 
became  their  god"  (II  Sam.  7:24).  Now,  the  question  here 
is,  How  came  the  religion  of  Israel  to  have  this  covenant 
character?  The  Old  Testament  speaks  of  several  transac- 
tions between  Yahweh  and  the  patriarchs  prior  to  the  one 
at  Mount  Sinai.  But  the  covenant  referred  to  in  the  body 
of  the  Hexateuch  and  in  the  books  of  the  prophets  is  the 
Sinai  covenant.  It  is  to  this  that  Hosea,  Amos,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  other  prophetic  writers  refer,  either  expressly 
or  by  implication.  The  covenant  of  the  prophets,  as  David- 
son writes,  is  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  in  which  Yahweh  became 
the  god  of  Israel.1  If  Yahweh  thus  became  the  god  of  Israel 
at  a  certain  time  and  place,  it  follows,  according  to  the  logic 
of  primitive  religion,  that  he  must  have  been  connected  with 
some  other  people  before  the  Israelites  entered  into  relation 
with  him.  The  Old  Testament  says  that  the  covenant  was 
made  in  the  Arabian  wilderness,  prior  to  the  invasion  of 
Canaan.  Whatever  this  transaction  was,  it  lies  on  the  border- 

1  Davidson,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  (New  York,  1904),  p.  246. 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  OF  ISRAEL        81 

land  between  Israel's  prehistoric,  nomadic  age  in  the  desert 
and  the  historic  period  after  the  settlement;  and  there  is 
difficulty  hi  reconstructing  its  details  upon  the  basis  of  the 
evidence  at  our  disposal. 

The  material  referring  to  this  period  is  of  too  uncertain  a 
character  for  us  to  form  a  definite  idea  of  the  situation;  and 
the  history  of  the  Israelites  in  the  Arabian  desert  must  remain 
shrouded  in  darkness.  We  have  seen,  over  and  over  again, 
that  the  Hexateuchal  view  of  the  Israelite  invasion  and  settle- 
ment of  Canaan  has  much  lower  historical  value  than  the 
corresponding  narratives  in  Judges  and  Samuel;  and  this 
consideration,  along  with  many  others,  leads  us  to  use  the 
Hexateuch  with  extreme  caution  at  all  points.  The  out- 
standing impression  left  upon  us,  after  going  over  the  evi- 
dence, is  that  the  cult  of  Yahweh  became  current  among  the 
Israelites  through  their  contact  with  a  pastoral  clan  whose 
wandering  ground  was  in  the  Sinai  peninsula.  But  Old 
Testament  scholarship  is  coming  to  agreement  that  we  cannot 
envisage  the  nomadic  history  of  Israel  in  any  clear  light. 
Whatever  the  covenant  in  the  Arabian  desert  may  have  been, 
the  history  of  Israel  in  Canaan  shows  that  this  transaction 
was  not  looked  upon  as  a  matter  of  exceptional  meaning  or 
importance  for  many  centuries  after  the  settlement.  Cove- 
nants admitting  strangers  to  the  worship  of  local  gods  were 
frequently  made  in  ancient  society.  Moreover,  a  covenant, 
in  primitive  religion,  carries  with  it  no  different  idea  of  morality 
than  is  provided  by  the  other  agencies  of  early  religious  life; 
and  there  is  no  ground  for  the  view  that  this  particular  cove- 
nant, by  which  the  Israelites  acquired  the  primitive  cult  of 
Yahweh,  brought  with  it  anything  new  in  the  sphere  of  morality 
or  ethics.  For  Yahweh  is  interpreted  by  the  great  prophets 
as  the  patron  of  that  mishpat,  or  customary  morality,  which  is 
identified  with  the  primitive  clan  group.  It  was  the  forcing  of 


82  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Amorite  law  and  morals  upon  the  more  primitive  Israelites 
that  brought  the  prophets  forward  as  champions  of  the  old 
mishpat,  and  emphasized  Yahweh's  relation  to  the  morality 
of  the  desert.1 

1  While  the  hypothesis  that  the  cult  of  Yahweh  came  to  the  Israelites  through 
covenant  with  another  clan,  the  Kenites,  appears  reasonable,  I  cannot  accept  the  view 
of  Budde,  Harper,  and  others,  that  this  transaction  contained  the  seeds  of  Israel's 
distinctive  ethical  development.  Budde's  thesis  maintains  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
became  ethical  because  it  was  a  religion  of  choice,  which  established  a  voluntary 
relation  between  a  people  and  its  god  (as  in  the  case  of  husband  and  wife).  The  Isra- 
elites, therefore,  having  adopted  a  strange  deity,  were  not  well  acquainted  with  their 
god's  ways;  and  whenever  they  suffered  misfortune,  they  were  driven  to  ask  what 
they  had  done  to  offend  this  new  god,  Yahweh.  Consequently,  they  acquired  a  very 
tender  conscience,  which  forced  them  to  look  well  to  their  conduct.  This  is  an  ingen- 
ious, but  artificial,  view  of  the  problem,  which  is  not  supported  by  the  facts,  and  which 
fails  to  "explain"  Israel's  history.  Budde's  argument  for  the  Kenite  derivation  of 
the  Yahweh  cult  is  well  sustained;  but  his  use  of  the  premises,  after  obtaining  them, 
has  not  commended  his  philosophy  to  biblical  scholars  in  general. 

Budde's  theory  is  no  more  convincing  than  the  ascription  to  Moses  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  nation  in  the  desert,  and  the  consequent  broadening  of  morality  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  clan.  Even  supposing  such  work  to  have  been  done  by  Moses,  it 
affords  no  point  of  departure  for  the  actual  process  of  religious-moral  development 
which  took  place  in  the  Hebrew  nation.  More  and  more  it  is  becoming  evident  that 
the  historic  fact  in  the  Hexateuch  is  the  importation  of  a  desert  god  and  a  nomadic 
morality  into  the  midst  of  settled,  Amorite  civilization;  and  even  the  Hexateuch 
itself  is  not  our  chief  source  for  this  fact.  The  Judges-Samuel-Kings  documents  and 
the  prophetic  books  bear  witness  to  it  in  more  sober  terms.  The  conditions  and  the 
demands  for  the  broadening  of  morality  beyond  the  limits  of  the  clan  did  not  exist 
until  after  the  Israelite  settlement  in  Canaan.  The  work  of  Moses  was  rather  that 
of  introducing  or  emphasizing  the  cult  of  Yahweh  than  of  expounding  a  new  system  of 
ethics;  and  whatever  he  may  have  done,  the  vital  conditions  of  Hebrew  religious 
development  are  to  be  sought  in  Canaan,  and  not  in  the  desert.  For  this  process, 
our  chief  authorities  are  the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  and  the  various 
prophets;  while  the  Hexateuch  has  only  a  secondary  value. 


PART  III 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  BIBLE  RELIGION 


FOREWORD  TO  PART  III 

In  this  division  of  the  study  we  turn  to  our  central  theme, 
the  social  process  through  which  the  religion  of  the  Bible  came 
into  the  world. 


CHAPTER  IX 
GENERAL  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT 

The  religion  of  the  Hebrews  acquired  its  distinctive  character 
through  a  long  struggle. — The  religion  of  the  Bible  was  born 
amid  a  great  warfare.  The  Hebrew  nation  was  the  arena  of  a 
mighty  struggle  whose  echoes  have  resounded  through  the 
ages.  When  we  go  behind  the  scenes,  and  begin  to  consider 
the  circumstances  amid  which,  and  through  which,  the  Bible 
religion  came  into  the  world,  we  are  thrown  back  upon  a  local, 
definite,  concrete  situation  of  great  interest.  Yahweh  emerges 
into  distinction  through  a  struggle  against  the  Baal- worship 
which  was  derived  from  the  Amorite  side  of  the  nation's 
ancestry.  We  do  not  connect  him  with  warfare  against  Mar- 
duk  of  Babylon,  or  Amon  of  Egypt,  or  any  other  far-away 
deity.  It  is  the  Baal-idea  that  serves  as  the  foil  against 
which  the  Yahweh-idea  takes  on  its  distinctive  character; 
and  even  in  the  New  Testament  period  the  opposition  to 
Yahweh  is  condensed  in  Baal-zebub,  the  prince  and  leader  of 
all  the  devils. 

The  Bible-idea  of  God  arose  in  connection  with  social  move- 
ments.— Sociological  study  of  the  Bible  is  not  concerned  with 
the  question  how  religion  in  general  came  into  the  world.  It 
does  not  undertake  to  show  how  the  idea  of  the  gods  arose. 
Suffice  it  to  know  that  all  the  ancient  peoples,  including  the 
Hebrews,  actually  did  have  gods  and  religions.  Sociological 
study  of  the  Bible  sets  out  with  the  idea  of  the  gods  as  one 
of  its  presuppositions — one  of  the  facts,  or  categories,  to  be 
taken  for  granted  at  the  beginning  of  the  discussion.  Religion 
was  in  the  world  many  ages  before  the  Hebrew  nation  was 

86 


GENERAL  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT      87 

born.     Our  problem  is  not,  How  did  religion  arise?  but, 
How  did  Bible  religion  arise? 

This  religion  took  form  around  the  idea  of  "Yahweh." 
We  shall  never  know  how  the  worship  of  Yahweh  first  became 
current,  any  more  than  we  can  trace  the  steps  by  which  the 
Greeks  got  the  worship  of  Zeus,  the  Egyptians  that  of  Osiris, 
or  the  Babylonians  that  of  Marduk.  But  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  worship  of  Yahweh  stood  at  first  upon  any  different 
footing  than  did  the  other  cults  of  the  ancient  world.  To 
anticipate  the  argument,  we  shall  see  that  the  Bible  religion 
came  into  existence  by  the  sifting  of  ancient  religious  ideas 
through  the  peculiar  national  experience  of  the  Hebrews. 
This  national  experience  was  unlike  that  of  any  other  ancient 
people;  and  it  set  the  Hebrew  mind  at  work  hi  channels 
different  from  those  that  opened  before  their  contemporaries. 
We  cannot,  of  course,  box  the  truth  within  the  compass  of 
mere  words  and  phrases.  The  terms  "evolution"  and  "nat- 
ural development"  are  attractive;  but  they  do  not  solve  the 
problem  before  us.  The  problem  of  the  Bible  is  that  of  the 
connections  between  certain  facts.  What  the  facts  are,  we 
shall  see  in  due  course.  The  religion  of  the  Bible  took  form 
gradually  through  a  series  of  emergencies,  or  crises,  in  which 
the  idea  of  Yahweh  passed  from  stage  to  stage.  The  epochs 
hi  this  process  have  left  their  marks  in  the  Bible  as  clearly 
as  the  various  geological  periods  have  left  their  traces  in  the 
strata  of  the  earth. 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS 

The  struggle  that  convulsed  the  ancient  Hebrews  was  a  con- 
flict between  the  standpoints  of  nomadism  and  civilization. — 
There  is  a  fundamental  difference  between  the  standpoint 
of  nomadism  and  the  standpoint  of  civilization.  This  dif- 
ference is  involved  in  the  general  contrast  between  society 
in  motion  and  society  at  rest.  It  is  concretely  illustrated  by 
the  treatment  of  property  hi  land;  for  manifestly,  one  of 
the  distinctions  between  society  in  motion  and  society  at 
rest  is  in  the  attitude  taken  up  with  reference  to  external 
nature. 

The  very  circumstances  of  nomadic  life  make  it  impossible 
to  reduce  the  earth  itself  to  private  or  individual  property. 
In  the  wandering  clan,  a  given  territory  or  district  belongs  to 
all  in  common.  Although  two  clans  may,  by  agreement, 
respect  each  other's  rights  to  wander  in  certain  parts  of  the 
wilderness,  each  clan  or  tribe  holds  its  territory  as  a  common 
possession.  Thus  it  was  among  the  American  Indians,  who 
knew  nothing  about  private  property  in  land  before  the 
European  settlement;  and  so  it  is  among  all  the  wandering 
races  of  mankind.  With  reference  to  the  Indians  of  New 
England  before  the  coming  of  the  English,  we  read : 

The  Indian  did  not  need  much  government,  and  his  manner  of  life 

did  not  admit  of  his  being  much  subjected  to  its  control Personal 

ownership  of  land  was  a  conception  which  had  not  risen  on  his  mind 

For  the  protection  of  life  and  of  hunting-grounds  against  an  enemy,  it 
was  necessary  that  there  should  be  unity  of  counsel  and  of  action  in  a 
tribe The  New  England  Indians  had  functionaries  for  such 


THE  CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS  89 

purposes;  the  higher  class  known  as  sachems,  the  subordinate,  or  those 
of  inferior  note  or  smaller  jurisdiction,  as  sagamores.1 

The  primitive  group  moves  about  in  search  of  food,  and 
holds  together  for  purposes  of  defense.  The  welfare  of  the 
individual  is  merged  in  that  of  the  clan.  The  good  fortune 
of  the  clan  is  necessarily  the  good  fortune  of  all  its  members; 
and  in  the  same  way,  the  suffering  of  the  clan  is  felt  by  all 
its  members.  Although  a  clan  may  attack  and  plunder 
another  group,  its  very  breath  of  life  is  justice  between  its 
own  people.  Thus,  the  English  traveler  Doughty  says  of 
the  desert  Arabs,  among  whom  he  lived: 

The  nomad  tribes  we  have  seen  to  be  commonwealths  of  brethren. 

....  They  divide  each  other's  losses The  malicious  subtlety 

of  usury  [interest]  is  foreign  to  the  brotherly  dealing  of  the  nomad 

tribesmen Their  justice  is  such,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  next 

governed  countries,  the  Arabs  of  the  wilderness  are  the  justest  of  mortals. 
Seldom  the  judges  and  elders  err,  in  these  small  societies  of  kindred, 
where  the  life  of  every  tribesman  lies  open  from  his  infancy  and  his 
state  is  to  all  men  well  known.2 

Since  the  territory  over  which  the  clan  roams  is  regarded 
as  the  common  storehouse  of  provision  for  everybody  in  the 
group,  the  clan's  ideas  about  "justice"  and  "right"  come  to 
be  insensibly  and  subtly  bound  up  with  its  relation  to  the 
soil.  There  is,  of  course,  no  direct  and  conscious  connection 
in  the  group  mind  between  justice  and  common  property  in 
the  land.  Yet  these  ideas  hang  together  in  a  way  which 
the  individual  member  of  the  group  may  not  be  able  to  state 
clearly,  but  which  he  feels  instinctively  and  profoundly. 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England  (Boston,  1858),  Vol.  I,  pp.  36,  37,  38;  (italics 
ours),  except  last  two  words;  cf.  Vol.  Ill,  p.  138;  Vol.  IV,  pp.  364,  419;  cf.  Morgan, 
Ancient  Society  (New  York,  1878),  p.  530.  Most  of  the  contentions  and  troubles 
arising  between  Indians  and  white  men  have  turned  around  land  cases,  in  which  the 
rights  of  the  two  races  have  been  the  subjects  of  dispute.  Cf.  Reports  of  the  Indian 
Rights  Association  (Philadelphia,  Arch  St.,  various  dates),  passim. 

a  Doughty,  Arabia  Deserta  (Cambridge),  Vol.  I,  pp.  345,  318,  249. 


9o  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

It  was  in  this  atmosphere  that  the  nomadic  ancestors  of  the 
Israelites  lived,  moved,  and  had  their  being.  The  great 
bulk  of  those  that  settled  in  the  highlands  of  Canaan  retained 
their  clan  organization  for  a  long  time,  and  were  forced  to 
continue  upon  a  very  crude  economic  level.  They  carried 
some  of  their  primitive  social  justice,  or  mishpat,  clear  through 
the  times  of  the  "Judges"  and  the  highland  kingdom  under 
Saul;  while  after  the  establishment  of  the  composite  Hebrew 
monarchy  under  David,  the  more  backward  and  remote  classes 
in  the  nation  were  still  greatly  influenced  by  the  ideas  and 
practices  of  the  desert  ancestors. 

Having  glanced  at  the  tendencies  which  the  nation  got 
from  the  Israelite  forefathers,  we  will  now  refer  to  the  usages 
and  ideas  coming  from  the  other  side  of  its  ancestry.  The 
Amorites  occupied  the  cross-roads  of  ancient  Semitic  civiliza- 
tion. Their  social  system  was  intimately  connected  with 
the  usages  of  trade  and  commerce;  and  they  had  left  the 
atmosphere  of  the  desert  clan  far  behind.  The  Amorites, 
like  the  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  Phoenicians,  and  Egyp- 
tians, had  long  ago  reduced  land  to  the  category  of  private 
property.  The  civilized  oriental  believed  in  law,  morals, 
justice,  mishpat  (whatever  term  we  may  use  in  this  connec- 
tion); but  his  ideas  about  such  things  were  a  mystery  to  the 
more  backward  Semite  of  the  desert  and  the  hills.  All  the 
long-settled  and  civilized  races  of  the  Semitic  world  regarded 
the  soil  as  an  item  of  commerce,  falling  within  the  general 
category  of  "property";  and  they  carried  this  principle  to 
its  logical  issue,  just  as  we  do  in  the  modern  world.  They 
bought,  sold,  and  rented  that  which  the  nomad  looked  upon 
as  the  common  foundation  of  life.  They  made  the  soil  the 
basis  of  security  for  mortgage  loans;  and  the  nomad  knew  little 
about  the  mystery  of  mortgages,  and  abhorred  what  little 
he  knew.  They  charged  interest  on  mortgage  loans;  and 
the  nomad  thought  all  interest  was  wicked.  Finally,  when 


THE  CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS  91 

mortgages  were  not  paid,  the  civilized  Semite  foreclosed  by 
legal  process,  taking  over  the  property,  and  sometimes  the 
person  of  the  debtor;  and  at  this  point,  the  mind  of  the  nomad 
ceased  to  follow  the  logic  of  the  situation.  While  the  Amo- 
rites  were  swallowed  up  in  the  mass  of  the  Hebrew  nation, 
their  point  of  view,  and  the  gods,  or  Baals,  connected  with 
that  point  of  view,  remained  as  factors  in  Hebrew  life  and 
history. 

Thus  we  see  how  two  different  standpoints  confronted  each 
other  during  the  development  of  Hebrew  nationality  at  the 
point  of  coalescence  between  Israelites  and  Amorites.  It 
should  be  understood  that  the  differences  about  landed  prop- 
erty do  not  by  any  means  exhaust  the  case  between  the 
morals  of  nomadism  and  civilization.  The  nature  of  the 
Hebrew  struggle  is  disclosed  only  in  part  by  the  conflict  over 
the  proper  treatment  of  land.  For  this  is  but  one  item  in 
the  whole  circle  of  usages  and  ideas  coming  under  the  head  of 
mishpat.1 

1  It  can  hardly  be  by  accident  that  the  Amorite  Araunah,  of  Jerusalem,  and  the 
Hittite  Ephron,  of  Hebron,  readily  dispose  of  their  soil  (II  Sam.,  chap.  24;  Gen., 
chap.  23),  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Israelite  peasant  Naboth  is  greatly  scandalized 
by  Ahab's  proposal  to  buy  his  patrimonial  real-estate.  "Yahweh  forbid  it  me!" 
cries  Naboth  (I  Kings  21:1-4).  The  differences  of  standpoint  cropping  out  here  can 
hardly  be  explained  as  arising  from  the  particular  situations.  The  drift  of  the  Old 
Testament  goes  to  show  that  the  Israelites  brought  into  the  Hebrew  nation  the  idea 
that  the  soil  was  inalienable;  whereas,  the  Amorites,  like  the  Babylonians  and 
Egyptians,  had  left  this  idea  behind,  and  regarded  land  as  a  lawful  item  of  commerce- 
One  of  our  critics  attempts  to  make  the  point  that  the  sentiment  against  alienation 
of  land  in  Israel  could  not  be  an  heirloom  from  nomadic  days,  because  in  the  nomadic 
period  there  is  no  land  to  be  alienated.  But  land  is  inherited  in  the  nomadic  state 
as  much  as  under  settled  civilization,  though  in  a  different  way.  Nomadic  social 
groups  are  always  identified  with  certain  districts  which  the  clan,  or  tribe,  holds  in 
common  as  its  absolute  property  over  against  other  groups.  Thus,  a  given  district 
is  continuously  "inherited"  by  the  clan  from  itself.  We  find  this  usage  among  the 
desert  Arabs,  the  Australian  aborigines,  the  Germanic  barbarians,  the  American 
Indians,  etc.  But  as  nomads  pass  over  into  civilization,  there  is  no  social  machinery 
by  which  the  soil  can  be  administered  as  the  common  property  of  an  entire  clan;  so 
the  sense  of  identity  with  the  soil  contracts  into  the  family  groups  whereof  the  clan  is 
composed;  and  it  becomes  a  crime,  in  the  eyes  of  the  more  primitive  classes  in  the 
community,  to  remove  a  neighbor's  landmark.  This  feeling  never  operates  perma- 


92  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

In  the  early  narratives  of  the  Hebrew  social  struggle,  the  land 
question  is  prominent. — According  to  the  accounts  in  I  Samuel, 
the  "perversion"  of  mishpat  was  one  of  the  causes  that  led  to 
the  setting-up  of  the  Israelite  monarchy  itself. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Samuel  was  old,  that  he  made  his  sons 

judges  over  Israel And  his  sons  walked  not  in  his  ways,  but 

turned  aside  after  lucre,  and  took  bribes,  and  perverted  mishpat.  Then 
all  the  elders  of  Israel  gathered  themselves  together,  and  came  to 
Samuel  unto  Ramah;  and  they  said  unto  him,  Behold,  thou  art  old, 
and  thy  sons  walk  not  in  thy  ways.  Now  make  us  a  king  to  judge  us 
like  all  the  nations  (I  Sam.  8:  i,  3,  4,  5).1 

In  reply  to  their  demand,  the  people  are  told  that  the 
social  system,  or  mishpat,  of  the  kingdom  will  not  be  satis- 
factory. The  central  feature  of  Samuel's  warning  is,  that  the 
king  will  take  away  the  best  of  their  fields,  their  vineyards, 
and  their  oliveyards,  and  give  these  lands  to  the  nobles  that 
surround  the  throne  (vs.  14).  Along  with  this,  the  people 
will  be  heavily  taxed  and  reduced  to  slavery.  In  other  words, 
we  have  here  a  picture  of  the  concentration  of  landed  property, 
in  which  the  national  soil  comes  into  the  grasp  of  the  nobility. 
This,  of  course,  involves  the  depression  of  an  increasing  num- 
ber of  the  people  into  the  lower  social  class.  It  is  this  feature 
of  the  situation  that  the  prophet  Isaiah  has  in  mind  when  he 

nently  to  stop  the  reduction  of  land  to  individual  proprietorship,  nor  to  overcome  the 
concentration  of  the  soil  in  the  hands  of  an  aristocracy. 

The  process  of  land  concentration  had  gone  so  far  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia  during 
prehistoric  times  that  when  these  countries  emerge  into  the  light  o£  history  their  soil  is 
already  in  the  hands  of  a  small  upper  class.  (Cf.  Breasted,  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt 
[Chicago,  1906],  Vol.  I,  p.  259;  Vol.  II,  pp.  6,  9,  277;  Vol.  IV,  p.  405;  and 
Goodspeed,  History  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  [New  York,  1906],  pp.  71-78.) 

1 1  Sam.,  chap.  8,  in  its  present  shape,  conies  no  doubt  from  a  time  later  than  that 
of  Samuel;  but  it  admirably  summarizes  one  aspect  of  Hebrew  history  from  first  to 
last.  The  supposition  is  not  in  any  way  impossible  that  Samuel  knew  about  the 
mishpat  identified  with  the  kings,  or  meleks,  in  the  neighboring  Amorite  cities;  and 
it  is  highly  probable  that  he  knew  about  the  unhappy  experience  of  Israel  with  the 
half-Amorite  Abi-melek,  of  Shechem  (Judg.,  chaps.  8  and  9).  Samuel's  prejudice 
against  the  term  melek,  together  with  family  interest,  would  be  sufficient  to  give  a 
historical  basis  for  the  narrative  in  which  he  warns  the  people  against  the  kingdom. 


THE  CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS  93 

speaks  of  "them  that  join  house  to  house,  that  lay  field  to 
field,  till  there  be  no  room"  (Isa.  5:8).  And  this  will  be 
the  social  system  identified  with  king  and  kingdom.  It  will 
not  be  a  mere  matter  of  individual,  or  personal,  wrong- 
doing. For  the  nobles,  rulers,  and  kings,  in  their  capacity 
as  custodians  of  the  law  courts,  will  uphold  the  mishpat  of 
commercial  civilization,  which  the  forefathers  in  the  desert 
knew  not. 

The  conflict  of  standpoints  must  be  held  carefully  in  view  in  the 
present  study. — Doughty  tells  of  a  quaint  argument  between 
one  of  the  nomads  and  a  townsman  over  the  question, 
"Whether  were  nigher  unto  God  the  life  of  townsfolk  or 
of  the  Aarab"  (wandering,  Bedouin  Arabs).1  The  contention 
of  the  nomad,  of  course,  was  in  favor  of  his  own  class.  For, 
according  to  his  view,  the  dwellers  in  the  Arabian  desert  were 
more  righteous  and  "nearer  to  God"  than  the  inhabitants  of 
Arabian  towns  and  cities  like  Mecca  and  Medina.  A  great 
deal  may  no  doubt  be  said  for  such  a  view.  But,  funda- 
mentally, human  nature  is  precisely  the  same  in  both  cases. 
The  differences  of  practice  and  view  arise  largely  out  of  differ- 
ences of  external  condition.  The  wandering  life  and  the 
settled  state  respectively  imply  unlike  institutions;  and  these 
different  social  arrangements  (or  mishpats)  give  rise  to  unlike 
practices,  and  lead  to  conflicting  ideas  about  what  is  right  in 
a  given  situation.2 

1  Ibid.,  p.  228. 

2  Writing  on  Arabia  before  Islam,  Winckler  says,  "The  feud  between  the  Bedouins 

and  the  settled  population  was  never  checked The  tribal  organization,  indeed, 

which  lies  at  the  root  of  the  Bedouin  life,  was  not  abandoned  as  rapidly  as  the  towns 
were  captured." — Helmoll's  History  of  the  World  (New  York,  1903),  Vol.  Ill,  pp. 
239-40.     Hommel  observes  that  "the  Assyrian  inscriptions  of  the  eighth  and  seventh 
centuries  B.C.  mention  a  whole  host  of  nomadic  Aramean  tribes  who  inhabited  the 

narrow  strip  of  desert  between  the  Tigris  and  the  Elamite  highlands These 

Arameans  would  seem  to  have  offered  the  same  resistance  to  Babylonian  civilization 
as  was  always  displayed  by  the  Bedouin  Arab  tribes  in  Palestine." — Ancient  Hebrew 
Tradition  (London,  1897),  p.  206.     See  also  Budde's  "Nomadic  Ideal,"  in  the  New 
World  (Cambridge,  Mass.,  1895). 


94  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  foregoing  illustration  from  desert  life  agrees  closely 
with  what  the  Bible  has  to  tell  us  about  the  practices  and 
ideas  of  the  Israelite  clans  after  they  left  the  Arabian  wilder- 
ness. Some  continued  to  be  shepherds  and  cattlemen.  Others 
became  tillers  of  the  soil.  City  life  was  monopolized,  or 
pre-empted,  by  the  Amorites,  who  held  the  strong,  fortified 
places  and  the  adjacent  villages  and  fields,  and  melted  slowly 
into  the  new  population.  Thus  the  hill  dwellers  in  the  Hebrew 
nation  were  shut  away  from  the  commercial  and  capitalistic 
standpoint;  and  they  never  developed  an  active,  oriental  city 
life  down  to  the  last.  "The  great  mass  of  the  people,"  as 
Kittel  observes,  "retained  their  simple  ways  and  life,  especially 
in  the  country  and  in  small  towns.  "x 

So  we  see  that,  although  the  distinction  between  Israelite 
and  Amorite  was  at  length  wiped  out,  the  social  struggle 
unconsciously  followed  the  original  race  lines.  The  moral 
codes  of  the  city  capitalist  and  the  nomad  were  brought  into 
active  collision  within  the  limits  of  one  and  the  same  social 
group.  Two  different  standpoints  were  brought  into  sharp 
contrast  in  the  development  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  This 
fundamental  variance  comes  to  the  surface  over  and  over 
again.  Thus,  the  social  classes  identified  with  the  large 
centers  of  population  are  actively  and  uniformly  opposed  in 
the  name  of  Yahweh,  by  the  great  literary  prophets.2  Even 
the  legends  of  the  Hexateuch  are  strongly  colored  by  the  same 
reaction.  Accordingly,  when  the  children  of  men  propose 
to  build  a  city,  Yahweh  looks  with  no  favor  upon  the  enter- 
prise. "  So  Yahweh  scattered  them  abroad  from  thence  upon 
the  face  of  all  the  earth;  and  they  left  off  building  the  city" 
(Gen.  ii : 8).  Abraham  the  nomad,  who  lives  in  tents,  is  the 
friend  of  Yahweh;  but  the  Amorites,  who  live  in  the  cities 
of  Canaan,  are  very  wicked;  and  when  "the  iniquity  of  the 

1  Kittel,  History  of  the  Hebrews  (London,  1896),  Vol.  II,  p.  297. 

2  We  shall  go  into  this  more  fully  elsewhere  in  the  present  study. 


THE  CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS  95 

Amorite  is  full,"  the  descendants  of  Abraham  shall  possess  the 
land  (Gen.  15:12-15).  Yahweh  tells  Abraham  that  the  cities 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  are  so  wicked  that  they  must  be 
destroyed.  Abraham  pleads  for  the  preservation  of  Sodom 
if  a  few  righteous  men  be  found  in  it.  But  the  cities  are  blotted 
out.  We  think  at  once  how  this  old  legend  reflects  the  idea 
of  the  prophet  Jeremiah:  "Run  ye  to  and  fro  through  the 
streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  see  now,  and  know,  and  seek  in  the 
broad  places  thereof,  if  ye  can  find  a  man,  if  there  be  any  that 
doeth  mishpat,  that  seeketh  faithfulness;  and  I  will  pardon 
her"  (Jer.  5:1).  Yahweh  accepts  the  offering  of  the  shepherd 
Abel,  who  brings  the  sacrifice  customary  among  nomads;  while 
Cain,  who  brings  the  offering  of  the  settled  worker  on  the  soil, 
is  rejected  (Gen.,  chap.  4).  The  Book  of  Genesis,  being 
written  at  a  late  epoch,  reflects  the  struggle  of  the  prophets 
against  the  practices  and  ideas  of  their  times. 

Hebrew  national  evolution  differed  slightly  from  that  of 
other  ancient  peoples,  and  is  directly  connected  with  the  reli- 
gious peculiarity  of  the  Hebrews. — While  we  must  hold  the 
conflict  of  standpoints  carefully  in  mind  in  the  present  study, 
we  should  realize  that  the  economic  struggle  between  civiliza- 
tion and  nomadism  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is 
not  in  the  economics  of  the  situation,  but  in  the  sociology — 
the  group-development. — that  the  distinction  of  the  Hebrews 
comes  into  view.  An  illustration  is  useful  here.  While  all 
the  oak  leaves  in  the  world  resemble  each  other,  and  conform 
to  the  same  general  pattern,  yet  no  two  oak  leaves  have  ever 
been  found  exactly  alike.  The  universe  in  which  we  live  con- 
tains endless  possibilities  of  new  combinations,  involving 
departure,  or  variation,  from  the  rule.  Thus,  the  great, 
fundamental  facts  of  social  evolution  are  everywhere  the 
same;  yet  no  two  nations  ever  went  through  exactly  the  same 
social  process.  A  slight  variation,  one  way  or  another,  is 
always  to  be  found.  Now,  it  is  the  "variations"  that  are  of 


96  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

epoch-making  importance  in  all  processes  of  development. 
The  rise  and  progress  of  the  Hebrew  national  group  was  a 
little  different  from  the  social  evolution  of  any  other  people, 
ancient  or  modern.  We  have  previously  referred  to  this  con- 
sideration (cf .  supra,  pp.  xxix-xxx) ;  and  we  shall  need  to  hold 
it  prominently  in  mind  in  our  sociological  study  of  the  Bible. 

Two  instances  arise  at  once  for  comparison,  the  Kassite 
conquest  of  Babylonia,  and  the  Hyksos  conquest  of  Egypt. 
In  both  cases  there  is  an  objective  resemblance  to  the  Israelite 
conquest  of  Canaan.  For  the  Kassites  and  the  Hyksos,  like 
the  Israelites,  were  primitive  peoples  who  succeeded  in  con- 
quering settled  and  civilized  races.  But  the  sociological 
parallel  ends  here.  The  Kassites  and  Hyksos  found  group- 
mechanisms  already  established  in  Babylonia  and  Egypt; 
and  the  invaders  were  compelled  to  adapt  themselves  to  the 
social  structure  of  the  conquered  races.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
Israelites,  it  was  the  invaders,  and  not  the  earlier  population, 
that  supplied  the  national  government  and  the  national 
deity.  A  desert  god  was  imported  abruptly  into  the  midst 
of  civilization. 

As  a  result  of  this  peculiar  interweaving  of  circumstances, 
that  part  of  the  nation  in  which  the  Amorite  tendency  was  the 
stronger  wanted  to  worship  the  national  god  in  the  charac- 
ter of  an  ordinary,  "civilized"  Baal,  who  countenanced  the 
social  system  of  civilization,  with  its  universal  slavery  and  its 
disregard  of  the  common  man.  But  on  the  contrary,  that 
part  of  the  nation  where  the  old  Israelite  tendency  was  the 
more  powerful  wanted  to  claim  the  national  god  as  the  patron 
of  the  old,  brotherhood  mishpat.  One  party  was  obstinately 
determined  upon  calling  Yahweh  a  Baal;  and  the  other  party 
was  equally  determined  upon  maintaining  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  national  god  and  the  Baals  of  the  Amorites.  As  a 
consequence,  the  evolution  of  Yahweh  from  a  god  of  nomadism 
into  a  god  of  "civilization"  was  obstructed.  The  religious 


THE   CONFLICTING  STANDPOINTS  97 

development  of  the  Hebrews  issued  in  what  is  called  a 
"cross-fertilization  of  culture,"  which  avoided  the  vices  of 
civilization  and  nomadism,  and  combined  their  virtues. 

The  novelty  of  the  situation  lay  in  the  fact  that  here,  for  the 
first  time  in  human  history,  the  struggle  between  social  classes 
found  a  parallel  in  the  contrast  between  religious  traditions. 
The  peculiar  conflict  of  religious  traditions  gave  expression  to 
the  social  struggle  and  at  length  became  the  symbol  of  that 
struggle.  In  the  midst  of  this  deeply  moving  national  experi- 
ence, the  better  Hebrew  minds  found  the  stimuli  which  prompted 
them  to  work  out  along  a  new  line  of  thought.1 

1  The  scientific  question  here  is  distinct  from  the  profounder  problem  of  religion 
and  theology;  and  the  progress  of  research  ought  to  make  it  increasingly  so.  From 
the  scientific  standpoint,  the  most  that  we  can  do  is  to  discover  the  facts,  and  set 
them  in  their  actual,  historical  relations  to  each  other.  Beyond  this  attempt,  science 
may  not  go.  For  a  scientific  investigator  to  dogmatize  about  the  metaphysical 
possibilities  of  the  case  is  just  as  illiberal  as  the  most  narrow  traditionalism  of  the 
old  school.  Let  the  facts,  or  categories,  of  Hebrew  history  be  reduced  to  their  barest 
and  most  rationalistic  terms;  and  we  may,  even  then,  hold  without  fear  of  contradic- 
tion that  the  personal  God  of  the  universe  was  at  work  -within  those  terms,  in  a  way 
that  we  cannot  understand  any  more  than  we  can  comprehend  how  our  own  per- 
sonality works  within  the  terms  of  our  daily  experience.  We  know  empirically  that 
the  facts  of  "personality"  and  "natural  law"  are  united;  and  this  practical 
knowledge  is  virtually  taken  up  by  religious  faith  and  thrown  over  into  the  field  of 
universal  being  in  the  form  of  a  postulate.  The  writer  has  made  a  statement  of  his 
position  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology  (Chicago),  April,  1908. 


CHAPTER  XI 

PEOPLES  AND  GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD 

The  first  experiences  of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan. — The  age  of 
the  Judges,  or  shophetim*  extends  from  the  Israelite  invasion 
of  the  land  up  to  the  founding  of  the  monarchy  under  Saul. 
Our  chief  source  of  information  for  this  long  stretch  of  time 
is  the  Book  of  Judges  and  the  first  eight  chapters  of  I  Samuel. 
This  interesting  period  of  history  was  a  time  of  martial  deeds 
and  thrilling  adventures.  An  atmosphere  of  romance  hangs 
over  it  such  as  we  find  in  the  early  tales  of  Rome,  the  Sagas 
of  the  Norsemen,  and  the  Iliad  of  the  Greeks.  The  figures 
of  mighty  heroes  loom  before  us — Barak  and  Gideon  and 
Jephthah  and  Samson  and  Samuel.  Great  men  move  to 
and  fro  through  the  shadows  of  that  early  era;  and  we  feel 
the  spell  of  its  fascination  as  we  turn  the  pages  of  the  Bible 
story. 

Certain  historical  factors  are  projected  into  sharp  relief  in 
the  Judges  period,  the  Israelites  and  Yahweh;  the  Amorites  and 
the  Baals. — On  the  one  side  are  the  Israelite  clans,  in  the  hill- 
country  and  extending  out  in  the  direction  of  the  wilderness 
on  the  east  and  south.  On  the  other  side  are  the  Amorites, 
chiefly  in  the  lowlands,  holding  the  strong,  fortified  cities  and 
the  adjacent  villages  and  fields.  These  two  peoples  lived  in 
proximity  for  some  time  before  they  came  under  the  cover  of 
one  political  roof  and  melted  into  the  social  organism  of  the 
Hebrew  nation. 

In  the  same  way,  the  cults  of  these  two  peoples  were  entirely 
distinct  at  the  outset.  The  worship  of  Yahweh  was  identified 

1  Pronounced,  sho-fet-em.  The  final  syllable  is  the  masculine  plural,  and  takes 
the  accent.  Compare  "cherub"  and  "cherubim." 

98 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD       99 

with  the  Israelites  and  their  social  usages.  Likewise,  the 
worship  of  the  Baals  was  identified  with  the  Amorites  and 
their  usages,  having  been  practiced  in  the  land  of  Canaan  time 
out  of  mind.  In  brief,  just  as  there  was  a  distinction  between 
the  two  peoples  in  the  early  history,  so  there  was  an  equally 
sharp  distinction  between  their  gods. 

Hostility  between  Yahweh  and  Baal  is  connected  with  antago- 
nism between  Israelite  and  Amorite. — "Ye  shall  not  fear  the 
gods  of  the  Amorites  in  whose  land  ye  dwell"  (Judg.  6:10). 
The  characteristic  warfare  between  religious  worships  in  the 
Bible  is  not  between  that  of  Yahweh  and  that  of  the  Babylo- 
nian Marduk,  or  the  Egyptian  Amon,  or  the  Assyrian  Ashur. 
On  the  contrary,  as  everyone  will  remember  who  has  read  the 
Bible  carefully,  the  great,  outstanding  struggle  is  between 
Yahweh  and  the  neighboring  Baals.  Now  these  deities  are 
precisely  the  gods  of  the  races  that  were  brought  into  hostile 
contact  by  the  Israelite  invasion  of  Canaan.  "The  contest 
with  the  Canaanite  religion,"  as  Marti  says,  "naturally 
played  an  important  part  in  the  struggle  for  the  possession  of 
the  country."1  First  and  last,  the  Baals  are  the  divinities 
against  which  the  champions  of  Yahweh  spend  their  force. 
The  local  Baals  of  Canaan  are,  so  to  speak,  the  villains  in  the 
mighty  drama  of  the  Bible.  The  term  Baal,  in  fact,  becomes  a 
characteristic  mark  of  antagonism  to  Yahweh;  and  it  survives 
in  the  New  Testament  and  in  Christian  theology  in  the  name 
of  God's  great  adversary,  Beelzebub,  "the  prince  of  devils."2 

The  Book  of  Judges  unrolls  a  dramatic  picture  before  us: 
Two  races  are  on  the  stage.  Two  series  of  hostile  social  groups 
are  placed  over  against  each  other  in  the  same  small  territory 

1  Marti,  The  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament  (London,  1007),  p.  98. 

JCf.  Matt.  10:25;  12:24,  27;  Mark  3:22;  Luke  16:15,  18,19.  Baal-zebub  was 
god  of  the  Philistine  city  of  Ekron,  adjacent  to  Israelite  territory.  Cf .  II  Kings 
1:2,  3,  6,  16.  The  Philistines  were  active  enemies  of  Israel  for  many  years.  We 
cannot  discover  by  what  obscure  association  of  ideas  this  particular  Baal  condensed 
within  himself  the  leadership  in  the  "opposition"  to  Yahweh. 


ioo  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

— the  one  chiefly  in  the  highlands;  the  other  chiefly  in  the 
lowlands.  At  that  period  of  human  history,  politics  and 
religion  were  closely  connected.  Church  and  State  were  simply 
the  obverse  and  reverse  aspects  of  the  same  thing.  The  gods 
were  looked  upon  as  members  of  the  social  groups  that  wor- 
shiped them;  and  in  all  matters  of  importance  the  gods  were 
consulted  by  casting  lots  or  otherwise.  In  view  of  this  inti- 
macy between  religion  and  politics,  the  hostility  of  social 
groups  against  each  other  drew  along  with  it  the  antagonism 
of  the  respective  gods.  Herein  we  find  one  of  the  sources  of 
the  idea  of  "war  between  the  gods."  In  the  light  of  this 
consideration,  the  meaning  of  the  title  the  "Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Yahweh"  is  not  mysterious  (Num.  21:14).  For  the 
battles  of  Israel  are  actually  called  "Yahweh's  battles" 
(I  Sam.  18:17;  25:28).  In  harmony  with  this  principle, 
during  the  wars  between  Rome  and  Carthage,  Hannibal  the 
Carthaginian  stood  before  the  altar  of  his  ancestral  god  and 
swore  eternal  hatred  for  the  people  and  the  gods  of  Rome.  In 
the  story  of  David  and  Goliath,  we  read  that  the  Philistine 
cursed  David  by  his  gods;  while  David  replied  that  he  came 
in  the  name  of  Yahweh  of  hosts,  the  god  of  the  armies  of 
Israel.  Thus  we  see  that  there  is  nothing  unusual  about 
the  mere  idea  of  rivalry,  or  antagonism,  between  Yahweh 
and  the  Baals  as  involved  in  the  hostility  between  Israelites 
and  Amorites.  This,  however,  is  only  a  small  part  of  the  story; 
for  these  gods  already  symbolized  the  clashing  standpoints 
of  nomadism  and  civilization.1 

1  The  Israelites  may  possibly  have  had  memories  of  a  reaction  against  the  gods 
and  the  usages  of  Egypt;  but  our  best  point  of  departure  in  the  present  study  is  the 
Judges  period,  which  lies  more  clearly  in  the  light  of  history  than  the  far-away  times 
contemplated  by  the  Hexateuch.  In  any  case,  we  begin  with  cultural  and  military 
antagonism  between  social  groups.  The  references  to  Egypt  in  the  earlier  narratives 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  scanty  and  uncertain.  The  Egyptian  bondage  is  discussed 
only  in  later  documents,  such  as  those  of  Exodus,  which  are  heavily  encrusted  with 
miracle  (cf.  chap,  iv,  "The  Making  of  the  Old  Testament").  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  Hexateuch  views  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and  the  Israelite  con- 
quest of  Canaan,  out  of  their  true  historical  relations  (cf.  chap.  ii). 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD      101 

The  Yahweh-Baal  conflict  in  the  Judges  period  stands  in  iso- 
lation from  the  later,  "prophetic"  struggle  against  Baal  worship.— 
The  clash  between  the  cults  of  Yahweh  and  the  Baals  is 
noticed  widely  throughout  the  Old  Testament;  but  at  this 
early  point  in  our  study,  it  becomes  our  duty  to  emphasize 
that  the  references  to  the  struggle  have  a  peculiar  distribu- 
tion corresponding  to  the  peculiar  national  experience  around 
which  the  Bible  turns. 

Thus,  a  number  of  passages  occur  hi  the  Book  of  Judges, 
and  the  opening  chapters  of  I  Samuel,  with  reference  to 
Israelite  reaction  against  the  cults  of  the  Amorites.  These 
passages  begin  with  Judg.  2:11,  and  end  with  I  Sam.  7  14. 
While  they  admit  the  compromise  of  Israel  with  the  cults  of 
the  Baals,  they  put  stress  upon  the  rejection  of  Baalism  by  the 
Israelites.  According  to  the  final  notice  in  the  series,  the 
children  of  Israel  put  away  the  Baals  and  served  Yahweh 
only.  It  should  be  emphasized  that  all  these  passages  refer 
to  the  period  before  the  Israelites  and  Amorites  united  to  form 
the  Hebrew  nation.  Having  laid  stress  upon  this  fact,  the 
importance  of  which  will  become  clear  as  our  study  proceeds, 
we  go  on  to  point  out  another  equally  striking  considera- 
tion. And  this  is,  that  setting  out  from  the  last  of  the  notices 
referred  to  (I  Sam.  7 14),  we  read  forward  in  Samuel  and  Kings 
through  an  expanse  of  two  thousand  verses,  representing  a 
period  of  about  two  centuries,  in  which  there  is  no  reference 
to  the  gods  of  the  Amorites.  At  the  end  of  this  period,  the 
prophet  Elijah  suddenly  comes  before  King  Ahab,  saying, 
"Thou  hast  followed  the  Baals"  (I  Kings  18:18).  A  little 
farther  on  we  read  that  Ahab  "  did  very  abominably  in  follow- 
ing idols,  according  to  all  that  the  Amorites  did"  (I  Kings 
21:26).  From  this  point  onward  in  Kings  we  hear  a  great 
deal  about  the  Yahweh-Baal  struggle.  It  may  be  asked  now, 
Upon  what  principle  is  this  peculiar  distribution  of  notices 
determined  ?  This  question  will  go  with  us. 


102  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

In  the  meanwhile,  stepping  outside  the  Judges-Samuel- 
Kings  narratives,  we  find  equally  striking  facts  in  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  who  came  after  Elijah.  This  great  prophet 
was  followed  in  the  next  century  (the  eighth)  by  Hosea,  who 
also  worked  in  the  Northern  Kingdom;  and  the  book  ascribed 
to  Hosea  puts  the  opposition  between  Yahweh  and  the  Baals 
into  the  foreground  of  its  treatment.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  books  of  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah  (prophets  who  lived  in 
Judah,  the  Southern  Kingdom,  during  the  same  century  with 
Hosea)  have  nothing  to  say  about  the  Baals!  But  coming 
down  to  Jeremiah,  who  worked  in  Judah  in  the  seventh  and 
sixth  centuries,  we  find  the  same  stress  upon  the  Baals  that 
appears  in  Hosea!  What  is  the  basis  of  these  phenomena? 
Is  it  a  mere  matter  of  individual  genius  ?  or  does  it  stand  in 
the  historical  situation?  This  question  is  an  item  in  the 
problem  raised  by  the  distribution  of  Baal-emphasis  in  the 
Judges-Samuel-Kings  documents.1 

The  Deuteronomic  view  of  the  Yahweh-Baal  conflict  in  the 
Judges  period. — According  to  the  Deuteronomic  editor,  whose 
hand  is  visible  in  the  Book  of  Judges  and  as  far  as  I  Sam.  7 : 4, 
the  early  history  of  Israel  was  marked  by  repeated  compromise 
with  Amorite  Baalism,  followed  in  each  case  by  sharp  reaction 
against  it.  Upon  this  view,  the  pre-national  experience  of 
Israel  in  Canaan  resolved  itself  into  recurring  cycles  which  are 
described  in  a  general  way  by  the  Deuteronomist  as  follows: 

(i)  Baalism 

And  the  children  of  Israel  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of 
Yahweh,  and  served  the  Baals.  And  they  forsook  Yahweh,  the  god  of 
their  fathers,  who  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  followed 
other  gods,  of  the  gods  of  the  peoples  that  were  round  about  them,  and 
bowed  themselves  down  unto  them  (Judg.  2:11  f.). 

1  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  intensely  preoccupied  with  the  struggle  of  Yahweh 
against  "other  gods";  and  it  scarcely  uses  the  term  Baal.  Nevertheless,  as  the  con- 
text shows,  it  is  the  local  gods  of  the  Amorites  that  are  chiefly  in  the  writer's  mind. 
See  Deut.  6: 14,  15,  and  12 : 2,  3,  29-31,  and  31 : 16.  We  shall  recur  to  Deuteronomy  in 
a  later  part  of  our  study. 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD      103 

(2)  Punishment 

And  the  anger  of  Yahweh  was  kindled  against  Israel;  and  he  delivered 
them  into  the  hands  of  spoilers  that  spoiled  them.  And  he  sold  them 
into  the  hands  of  their  enemies  round  about,  so  that  they  could  not 
any  longer  stand  before  their  enemies  (vs.  14). 

(3)  Deliverance 

And  Yahweh  raised  up  judges  who  saved  them  out  of  the  hand  of 

those  that  spoiled  them And  when  Yahweh  raised  them  up 

judges,  then  Yahweh  was  with  the  judge,  and  saved  them  out  of  the 
hand  of  their  enemies  all  the  days  of  the  judge  (vss.  16,  18). 

According  to  this  interpretation,  the  Judges  period  resolved 
itself  into  successive  cycles  of  Baalism,  Punishment,  and 
Deliverance;  and  in  the  final  notice  of  the  series  we  read  that 
Israel  put  away  the  Baals  and  served  Yahweh  only  (I  Sam. 
7:4).  //  these  recurring  suppressions  of  Amorite  Baalism  be 
literal  history,  then  there  is  no  difficulty  about  the  initial  stage 
of  the  religious  process  in  Canaan:  the  tradition  of  Yahweh's 
hostility  against  the  local  Baals  runs  parallel  to  the  antagonism 
between  social  groups  and  gives  expression  to  group-hostility. 

But  the  editor  whose  comments  are  inserted  in  the  books 
of  Judges  and  Samuel,  views  that  period  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  was  first  published  a 
generation  before  the  Babylonian  exile.  In  that  important 
work,  the  penalty  for  worshiping  other  gods  is  all  kinds  of 
misfortune  (Deut.  11:26-29;  28:14-68).  Among  other  evils, 
"Yahweh  will  cause  thee  to  be  smitten  before  thine  enemies. 
Thou  shalt  go  out  one  way  against  them,  and  shalt  flee  seven 
ways  before  them"  (28:25).  Looking  at  the  traditions  and 
stories  coming  down  from  the  Judges  period,  the  Deuteronomic 
editor  finds  that  his  ancestors  were  afflicted  and  oppressed  by 
foreigners,  and  that  they  were  delivered  by  warlike  leaders, 
who  rallied  them  to  battle  in  the  name  of  Yahweh.  In  har- 
mony with  the  Deuteronomic  ideas,  he  reasons  that  the  early 
Israelites  could  not  have  had  misfortune  unless  they  had  for- 
gotten Yahweh  and  served  other  gods.  He  therefore  draws 


io4  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

the  inference  that  the  periodical  oppressions  of  early  Israel 
constitute  first-class  evidence  of  Baalism.  Accordingly,  he 
brings  together  a  number  of  old  Israelite  stories  about  the 
Judges  period,  and  connects  these  interesting  stories  by  com- 
ments of  his  own,  which  are  obviously  far  later  than  the 
stories  themselves;  and  the  result  is  the  Book  of  Judges, 
which  was  prepared  at  a  late  period  as  a  work  of  religious 
edification.  In  the  general  introduction  to  his  book  (from 
which  we  have  already  quoted,  supra),  the  editor  states  the 
philosophy  of  the  Judges  period  as  an  oscillation  between 
Yahwism  and  Baalism;  and  whenever  he  sees  an  opportunity, 
he  inserts  the  formula,  "Now  the  children  of  Israel  did  evil 

in  the  sight  of  Yahweh,  and  served  the  Baals Then 

they  were  oppressed   [by  such  and  such  a  people] 

Then  they  were  delivered  [by  so  and  so]."1  These  editorial 
observations  constitute  what  modern  scholars  call  the  "frame- 
work," the  original  narratives  being  compressed  within  the 
framework.  The  method  of  the  Deuteronomic  editor  of 
Judges  is  perfectly  clear;  but  his  results  are  doubtful. 

The  sociological  view  of  the  Yahweh-Baal  conflict  in  the  Judges 
period. — The  stories  in  the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  are 
interspersed  by  eight  editorial  notices  in  which  the  Israelites 
are  said  to  have  gone  over  to  the  worship  of  the  Amorite 
Baals.2  But  it  should  be  distinctly  understood  that  in  five 
out  of  these  eight  cases  there  is  absolutely  no  reference  to 
any  connection  between  the  Israelites  and  the  Amorites; 
while  in  the  remaining  cases,  although  the  two  peoples  are 
in  contact,  the  prevailing  atmosphere  is  that  of  alienation 
and  war  between  them.3  In  other  words,  wherever  there  is 

1  This  description  will  serve  in  a  general  way  to  represent  the  modern  critical 
view  of  Judges;  but  the  book  itself  shows  that  the  process  by  which  it  reached  its 
present  form  was  even  more  complex. 

*(i)  Judg.  3:7!.;  (2)3:121.;  (3)  4: if-;  (4)6:if.;  (5)8:33!.;  (6)io:6f.; 
(7)  13: if.;  (8)  I  Sam.  7:4- 

3  Nos.  3,  4,  and  5  in  the  preceding  note.  In  No.  3,  the  Israelites  defeat  the 
Amorites  at  Esdraelon;  in  No.  4,  the  two  peoples  are  alien;  and  in  No.  5,  although 
there  is  a  temporary  understanding,  the  Israelites  finally  destroy  the  Amorites  of 


PEOPLES   AND    GODS   IN  THE  JUDGES   PERIOD      105 


an  opportunity  to  study  the  local  situation,  as  concerns  the 
Israelites  and  Amorites,  the  two  peoples  are  still  sundered 
by  hatred.  In  spite  of  the  sweeping  editorial  statement  that 
the  Israelites  promptly  intermarried  with  the  inhabitants  of 
Canaan  (Judg.  3:5,  6),  we  find  only  one  illustration,  and  that 
a  case  of  the  long-distance,  or  sadika,  marriage,  in  which  the 
woman  remains  with  her  own  people  apart  from  her  husband 
(Judg.  8:31).  The  actual  circumstances  of  the  pre-national 
period  could  hardly  have  been  so  regular  and  systematic  as 
the  editor  of  Judges  and  Samuel  supposes.  While  there  was 
undoubtedly  a  certain  measure  of  accommodation  between 
the  newer  and  older  inhabitants ;  and  while  some  of  the  Israel- 
ites may  have  worshiped  the  Baals  during  this  period;  the 
outstanding  feature  of  the  Judges  epoch  is  the  hostile  contact 
of  alien  social  groups.  Hence,  no  matter  how  much  there  may 
be  in  the  Deuteronomic  idea  of  a  recurrent  "putting-away" 
of  the  Amorite  gods,  the  tradition  of  Yahweh's  early  enmity 
against  the  local  Baals  is  chiefly  attested  and  guaranteed  by 
the  principle  of  group-antagonism. 

A  tabular  exhibit  of  collisions  between  Israelites  and  Amo- 
rites in  the  Judges  period,  and  extending  into  the  tune  of  the 
early  monarchy,  is  instructive: 

TABLE  I 

AMORITES  VANQUISHED  BY  ISRAEL 
i.  Amorites  of  Hebron  (Judg.  1:10) 


2. 

3- 
4- 

5- 
6. 

7- 


'  Kiriath-sepher  (Judg.  1:11-15) 
'  Zephath  (Judg.  1:17) 

Beth-el  (Judg.  1:22-26) 

Shechem  (Judg.  9:45) 

Laish  (Judg.  18:27) 

under  Sisera  (Judg.,  chaps.  4  and  5) 


Shechem.  Kittel  writes,  "It  is  noteworthy  that  the  statements  [about  Baal  wor- 
ship] are  confined  exclusively  to  these  late  narrators.  Accordingly  there  are  remark- 
ably few  concrete  facts  adduced  in  support  of  them." — History  of  the  Hebrews 
(London,  1888),  Vol.  II,  pp.  97,  98.  Kautsch  says,  "The  picture  which  the  Deute- 
ronomic redactor  of  the  Book  of  Judges  sketches  ....  is  not  true  to  the  historical 
reality." — Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (ext.  vol.),  p.  645. 


io6  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

TABLE  II 

AMORITES  UNCONQUERED,  BUT  LATER  FUSED  WITH  ISRAEL 

1.  Amorites  of  Beth-shean       (Judg.  1:27) 

2.  "  Taanach 

3.  "  Dor 

4.  "  "  Ibleam  "        " 

5.  "  "  Megiddo  "        " 

6.  "  "  Gezer  (Judg.  1:29) 

7.  "  "  Kitron  (Judg.  1:30) 

8.  "  "  Nahalol 

9.  "  "  Acco  (Judg.  1:31) 

10.  "  "  Ahlab 

11.  "  "  Achzib 

12.  "  "  Helbah 

13.  "  "  Aphik 

14.  "  Rehob 

15.  "  Beth-shemesh  (Judg.  1:33) 

16.  "         "  Beth-anath          "        " 

17.  "         "  Her es  (Judg.  1:34, 35) 

18.  "  Aijalon 

19.  "         "  Shaalbim  "        " 

20.  "  Hazor  (Judg.  4:17) 

21.  "  Jerusalem        (Judg.  19:10-12) 

22.  "         "  Gibeon  (II  Sam.  21:1-2) 

From  these  tables  it  will  be  seen  that  the  original  victories 
over  the  Amorites  were  confined  to  the  hill-country.  The 
larger  part  of  the  earlier  inhabitants  were,  indeed,  uncon- 
quered  by  the  Israelites.1 

1  In  this  connection,  it  is  important  to  notice  that  all  the  sanctuaries  of  Yahweh 
that  are  "authenticated"  by  the  Book  of  Genesis  are  in  the  field  of  the  first  and 
smaller,  table,  being  found  in  the  highlands  (Gen.  12:6;  12:8;  13:18;  21:33;  26:23- 
25;  28:18-19;  32;3o-3i;  33:18-20;  35:1,  14,  15;  46:1).  The  first  book  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  frequently  referred  to  in  a  general  and  vague  way  as  evidence  that 
the  sanctuaries  "taken  over"  by  Israel  from  the  Amorites  were  later  believed  to  have 
been  the  scene  of  Yahweh  theophanies  during  patriarchal  times.  In  reality,  Genesis 
agrees  with  Judges  in  respect  of  the  partial  nature  of  the  conquest.  The  Genesis 
legends  confine  themselves  to  a  few  places  in  the  hill-country;  and,  excepting  the 
story  of  Melchizedek,  the  patriarchal  stories  are  not  brought  into  connection  with 
the  strong,  walled  cities  of  Table  II.  This  is  a  good  indication  of  the  trustworthy 
character  of  the  stories  in  Genesis;  but  it  gives  no  support  to  modern  theories  of  a 
wholesale  validation  of  Amorite  shrines  by  Hebrew  tradition. 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD      107 

All  the  leading  Israelites  in  the  Judges  period  were  men  of 
the  hill-country. — In  accordance  with  the  limited  nature  of  the 
Israelite  conquest,  the  chiefs  and  heroes  of  the  Judges  period 
were  invariably  men  of  the  uplands.  Thus,  Othniel  was 
connected  with  the  clan  of  Caleb  in  the  hills  of  Judah.  Ehud 
lived  in  the  highlands  of  Ephraim.  Here  also  dwelt  the 
famous  Deborah,  in  whose  day  the  Amorites  gathered  them- 
selves together  to  make  one  last,  mighty  struggle  before 
acquiescing  in  Israel's  presence.  A  great  battle  took  place 
in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  Two  accounts  of  this  action  have 
come  down  to  us,  the  one  in  prose  (Judg.,  chap.  4),  the  other 
in  poetry  (Judg.,  chap.  5,  the  "Deborah  Song").  In  the 
latter  account,  we  see  that  the  Israelites  had  no  national 
organization  at  this  time.  Only  five  of  their  clans  are  men- 
tioned as  being  represented  in  the  army  (Judg.  5:14,  15); 
while  five  other  Israelite  clans  are  blacklisted  "because  they 
came  not  to  the  help  of  Yahweh  against  the  mighty" 
(vss.  15-17,  23). 

The  great  battle  at  Esdraelon  left  the  distribution  of  the 
two  races  unchanged;  but  it  confirmed  the  title  of  the  Israel- 
ite clans  to  the  hill-country.  So,  as  we  continue  onward  in 
the  Book  of  Judges,  the  hero  Gideon  is  found  in  the  little 
village  of  Ophrah  in  the  hills  of  Ephraim.  Tola  dwells  also 
in  the  same  region.  Jair  and  Jephthah  are  located  in  the  hills 
of  Gilead.  Ibzan  is  at  Bethlehem,  in  the  hills  of  Judah. 
Abdon  is  an  Ephraimite.  Samson  lives  in  the  village  of 
Zorah,  which  lies  on  a  hill  west  of  Jerusalem.  After  the 
Samson  stories,  the  remaining  chapters  of  Judges  take  us 
once  more  through  the  hills  of  Ephraim.  The  attitude  of 
these  hill  clans  toward  the  Amorite  settlements  finds  a  good 
illustration  in  the  case  of  a  certain  Levite.  Without  going 
into  the  preliminary  details,  we  quote: 

He  rose  up  and  departed,  and  came  over  against  Jebus  (the  same  as 
Jerusalem) When  they  were  by  Jebus,  the  day  was  far  spent. 


io8  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

And  the  slave  said  unto  his  master,  Come,  I  pray  you,  and  let  us  turn 
aside  into  this  city  of  the  Jebusites,  and  lodge  in  it.  And  his  master 
said  unto  him,  We  will  not  turn  aside  into  the  city  of  a  foreigner  that  is  not 
of  the  children  of  Israel;  but  we  will  pass  over  to  Gibeah  ....  and  we 
will  lodge  in  Gibeah  or  in  Ramah  (Judg.  19: 10-13;  italics  ours). 

The  city  of  Jerusalem  is  bound  up  so  closely  with  the  name 
of  Israel  that  this  passage  comes  before  the  reader  for  the 
first  time  with  the  effect  of  a  shock.  Here  we  discover  this 
well-known  place  to  be  a  foreign  city  far  down  in  the  Judges 
period,  long  after  the  Israelites  had  settled  in  Canaan.  Here 
it  stands  amid  the  shadows  of  advancing  night.  As  the  sun 
sinks  in  the  west,  the  city  walls  rise,  black  and  forbidding,  in 
front  of  the  travelers.  The  Israelite  will  not  trust  himself 
to  lodge  there,  so  he  continues  on  through  the  footpaths  in 
the  hills  as  the  darkness  falls.  The  highlands,  then  as  now, 
stood  round  about  Jerusalem.  The  Jebusite  inhabitants  of 
the  city  were  merely  a  branch  of  the  Amorites.  This  is 
remembered  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel  when  he  writes,  "Thus 
saith  the  lord  Yahweh  to  Jerusalem,  Thine  origin  and  thy 
nativity  is  of  the  land  of  the  Canaanite.  The  Amorite  was 
thy  father"  (Ezek.  16:3,  45;  italics  ours).1 

The  only  attempt  at  political  union  between  Israelites  and 
Amorites  in  the  Judges  period  was  a  failure. — The  early  chap- 
ters of  Judges  contain  the  well-known  tales  about  the  hero 
Gideon  (chaps.  6  ff.).  The  stories  relating  to  Gideon  and  his 
son  Abimelek  are  in  some  confusion;  but  the  sociological 
factors  are  quite  certain.  On  the  one  hand  was  the  Israelite 
clan  of  Abiezer,  living  in  the  hills  of  Ephraim,  with  their 
headquarters  at  the  village  of  Ophrah.  They  were  farmers 
and  shepherds,  depending  upon  their  fields  and  cattle  for  a 
living.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  valley  below  Ophrah,  was 
the  Amorite  city  of  Shechem,  whose  inhabitants  depended 

1  The  terms  Canaanite  and  Amorite  are  used  in  the  same  sense  by  different  Old 
Testament  writers;  and  we  shall  employ  the  shorter  term  as  far  as  possible  in  the 
present  study. 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD      109 

in  part  upon  the  fertile  fields  outside  the  city,  and  in  part 
upon  the  commerce  that  flowed  through  their  valley. 

An  adjustment  of  some  kind  was  arranged  between  Gideon's 
Israelites  and  the  Amorites  of  Shechem.  The  leading  men  on 
both  sides  reached  an  understanding.  Gideon  took  a  secon- 
dary wife,  or  concubine,  from  one  of  the  families  of  Shechem — 
a  kind  of  "state-marriage";  and  the  woman  remained  with 
her  own  folk  in  the  city.  Both  Israelites  and  Amorites 
worshiped  the  same  divinity,  who  was  known  as  the  god,  or 
master  of  the  "covenant"  (berith,  Judg.  8:33;  9:46).  The 
covenant  church  was  near  Shechem.  Gideon  had  considerable 
influence  among  the  Israelites  in  central  Ephraim.  When  the 
Midianites  from  the  desert  came  up  against  the  land  after  the 
manner  of  Israel  at  an  earlier  day,  "  Gideon  sent  messengers 
throughout  all  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim,  saying,  Come 
down  against  Midian"  (7:24).  He  fought  these  invaders 
from  the  wilderness  of  Arabia  not  only  on  behalf  of  Israel, 
but  on  behalf  of  the  Amorites  of  Shechem  as  well  (9:17). 

It  is  impossible  to  discover  just  what  kind  of  an  understand- 
ing existed  between  the  two  peoples.  Whatever  it  was,  the 
political  power  of  Gideon  was  of  sufficient  importance  to 
become  the  subject  of  dispute  after  his  death.  On  the  sur- 
face, the  controversy  was  a  personal  quarrel;  but  the  question 
at  issue  was  whether  the  seat  of  government  should  continue 
in  the  hands  of  Gideon's  family  at  Ophrah,  or  whether  the 
government  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Amorites  at  Shechem. 
In  order  to  accomplish  their  purpose,  the  Amorites  made  use 
of  Abimelek,  the  son  of  Gideon's  concubine.  He  was  given  a 
fund,  or  subsidy,  out  of  the  church  treasury,  "wherewith 
Abimelek  hired  vain  and  light  fellows,  who  followed  him. 
And  he  went  unto  his  father's  house  in  Ophrah,  and  slew  his 
brethren  ....  three-score  and  ten  persons"  (9: if.).  This 
put  the  balance  of  power  into  the  hands  of  the  Amorites, 
leaving  them  in  possession  of  the  only  living  heir  of  Gideon. 


no  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Accordingly,  "all  the  men  of  Shechem  assembled  themselves 
together  ....  and  went  and  made  Abimelek  king  by  the 

oak  of  the  pillar  that  was  in  Shechem And  Abimelek 

was  prince  over  Israel  three  years"  (9:6,  22).  This  is  a  very 
noteworthy  situation.  The  Amorite  voters  elected  a  king 
who  reigned  not  only  over  Shechem  but  over  the  Israelites 
in  the  hills  near  the  city.  What  we  have  here,  of  course,  is 
merely  a  local  kingdom  in  the  heart  of  Ephraim.  Abimelek 
did  not  rule  over  "all  Israel";  but  even  so,  the  experiment  is 
highly  instructive  and  full  of  meaning. 

Judging  by  the  brief  reign  of  Abimelek,  the  rule  of  the  city 
of  Shechem  could  not  have  been  very  stable.  For  trouble 
soon  arose  between  the  Shechemites  and  their  half-breed  ruler. 
The  king  withdrew  his  residence,  and  put  the  city  in  charge 
of  a  lieutenant.  Abimelek  was  now  repudiated  by  the  same 
Shechemite  aristocracy  that  had  elevated  him  to  the  throne. 
After  this,  Abimelek  made  terms  with  the  Israelites,  led  them 
against  the  Amorites,  and  reduced  the  city  of  Shechem  to 

ruins.     "And  Abimelek  fought  against  the  city And 

he  took  the  city,  and  slew  all  the  people  that  were  therein. 
And  he  beat  down  the  city  and  sowed  it  with  salt"  (9:45). 
Moreover,  he  burned  the  great  Tower  of  Shechem,  which  was 
outside  the  city,  "so  that  all  the  men  of  the  Tower  of  Shechem 
died  also,  about  a  thousand  men  and  women  "  (vs.  49).  Carry- 
ing the  war  to  another  Amorite  city  in  the  neighborhood,  he 
met  his  death;  "and  when  all  the  men  of  Israel  saw  that 
Abimelek  was  dead,  they  departed  every  man  unto  his  place" 

(vs.  55)  •' 

Thus  we  see  that  the  only  attempt  at  political  union 
between  Israelites  and  Amorite?  in  the  Judges  period  was  a 
disastrous  failure.  The  dark  outcome  of  the  kingdom  of 

1  An  echo  of  this  situation  is  found  in  the  traditions  of  Genesis  (chap.  34).  The 
Amorites  of  Shechem  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Israelites;  but  the  covenant  is 
broken  by  Simeon  and  Levi,  who  go  into  the  city  and  murder  all  the  male  Shechemites. 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES   PERIOD      in 

Shechem  seems  to  have  discouraged  experiments  in  state- 
making  for  a  long  time  afterward.  Each  side  had  been 
treacherous  and  brutal.  When  the  awful  story  was  noised 
about  the  land,  it  could  hardly  have  been  a  factor  in  softening 
race-hatreds.  Israelites  would  be  afraid  to  trust  Amorites, 
because  the  men  of  Shechem  had  subsidized  the  slaughter  of 
Gideon's  family  at  Ophrah.  On  the  other  hand,  Amorites 
would  be  afraid  to  trust  Israelites,  because  Gideon's  clan  had 
wiped  out  the  city  of  Shechem. 

During  the  Judges  period,  the  Israelites  remained  in  the  clan 
stage  of  social  development. — The  primitive  social  organiza- 
tion of  Israel  was  continued  through  the  Judges  period. 
Although  the  outward  aspects  of  society  in  this  epoch  were 
barbaric  and  rough,  the  internal  aspects  of  life,  as  touching 
the  relations  of  the  men  of  a  clan  to  each  other,  had  a  strong 
moral  quality.  Those  who  treat  the  age  as  a  time  in  which 
there  was  no  organization  of  the  moral  feelings,  do  so  from 
the  standpoint  of  our  advanced  modern  conscience.  For  no 
social  group  is  ever  without  ethical  feelings  embodied  in  its 
usages;  and  no  ancient  clan  could  maintain  its  integrity  with- 
out customary  laws  and  regulations  to  which  powerful  moral 
sentiments  attached.1 

The  Israelites  of  the  Judges  period  were  forced  to  keep  up 
their  clan  organizations  by  the  pressure  of  their  enemies  the 
Amorites,  Moabites,  Midianites,  Philistines,  etc.  (Judg.,  chaps, 
i,  4,  5,  6,  7,  10,  n,  15,  20;  I  Sam.,  chaps.  4,  5,  6,  7).  It  was 
by  means  of  their  clan  solidarity  that  the  Israelites  were  able 
to  cope  with  enemies  and  occasionally  to  fight  with  each  other. 
The  sentiment  of  loyalty  to  \the  clan  group,  and  the  feeling 
of  mutual  duty  among  the  members  of  the  fellowship,  were 
some  of  the  great  ruling  forces  of  society  in  the  pre-national 

1  The  expression  with  which  the  Book  of  Judges  comes  to  an  end,  "Every  man 
did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes,"  is  the  statement  of  a  late  compiler,  and  is  at 
variance  with  the  clear  testimony  of  the  fundamental,  early  documents  inclosed 
within  the  editorial  framework. 


ii2  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

epoch.  It  was  along  this  route  that  the  doctrine  of  human 
brotherhood  passed  through  the  course  of  its  evolution  from 
its  narrow  beginnings  in  blood-revenge  up  to  the  parable  of 
the  Good  Samaritan.  It  was  the  feeling  of  outraged  brother- 
hood that  nerved  Gideon  to  retaliate  upon  the  Midianites  for 
the  death  of  his  kinsmen:  "They  were  my  brethren,  the 
sons  of  my  mother"  (Judg.  8:19).  The  Benjamites  were 
attacked  by  a  coalition  of  other  Israelite  clans  because  they 
refused  to  give  up  their  brethren  for  punishment  (Judg.  20: 

I2-I4).1 

Yahweh  in  the  Judges  period  remained  a  god  of  the  primitive, 
brotherhood  "mishpat." — We  have  seen  that  religion  and  politics 
are  always  identified  in  ancient  society,  and  that  all  social 
customs  and  usages  fall  under  the  purview  of  the  gods  (chaps, 
viii,  x,  supra}.  The  mishpat  of  Israel  in  the  nomadic,  desert 
life  was  connected  with  Yahweh  as  a  matter  of  course;  and 
this  whole  circle  of  primitive  law  and  morality  (with  modifica- 
tions due  to  the  changed  environment)  continued  to  be 
identified  with  Yahweh  throughout  the  Judges  period.  The 
judge  administered  his  office  in  the  name  of  Yahweh.  The 
clan  courts  regularly  dispensed  mishpat  at  this  time  (Judg. 
3:10;  4:4,  5;  10:3;  12:7,  9,  n,  13,  14;  I  Sam.  7:15-17); 
and  it  was  the  corruption  of  the  courts,  and  the  "perversion" 
of  mishpat,  that  led,  among  other  causes,  to  the  popular 
demand  for  a  king  (I  Sam.  8:1-5).  The  judge  was  known  in 
the  Hebrew  language  as  a  shophet.  His  act  of  judgment  was 
expressed  by  shaphat;  while  the  usages  to  which  he  referred  as 
precedents  were  designated  by  the  now  familiar  word  mishpat, 
which  is  derived  from  the  same  root  as  the  other  two  terms. 

1  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  original  circumstance  around  which  the  situation 
turns  is  the  maltreatment  and  murder  of  a  woman  of  the  clan  of  Judah  by  certain 
Benjamites  (Judg.  19:1,  2  f.).  A  number  of  hill  clans  thereupon  unite  in  a  demand 
upon  the  murderers'  clan  for  their  punishment.  This  is  refused  by  the  Benjamites, 
who  thus  become  partners  with  the  murderers.  The  ensuing  attack  on  the  clan  of 
Benjamin  is  led  by  the  woman's  own  people  (Judg.  20:18). 


PEOPLES  AND   GODS  IN  THE  JUDGES  PERIOD      113 

The  Judges  period  as  a  whole  has  an  important  place  in 
the  development  of  Bible  religion.  Yahweh,  the  god  of  the 
brotherhood  mishpat,  was  clearly  set  off  in  contrast  with  the 
local  Baals  of  the  Amorites.  This  initial  emphasis  upon  the 
distinction  between  the  gods  would  have  been  lost  if  the  Israel- 
ites had  all  promptly  settled  down,  and  adopted  the  gods  and 
the  standpoint  of  advanced,  oriental  civilization.  Although 
at  a  subsequent  period  the  worship  of  Yahweh  was  brought 
more  closely  into  contact  with  the  cults  of  the  local  deities, 
the  historical  memories  of  the  Judges  epoch,  charged  with  the 
idea  of  Yahweh's  distinction  from  the  gods  of  the  land,  influ- 
enced the  mind  of  later  generations.1 

At  the  close  of  the  Judges  period  there  was  a  treaty  of  peace 
between  Israelites  and  Amorites. — As  the  time  of  the  monarchy 
draws  near,  there  comes  before  us  a  highly  significant  notice 
touching  the  relations  between  the  newer  and  the  older  inhabi- 
tants of  Canaan.  This  notice  occurs  in  the  midst  of  the  dis- 
joined stories  about  the  Philistine  wars,  and  is  as  follows: 
" And  there  was  peace  between  Israel  and  the  Amorites"  (I  Sam. 
7:14).  The  two  races  were  thus  laying  aside  their  hatred, 
and  making  treaties  of  peace.  With  this  happy  suggestion 
of  concord,  the  age  of  the  Judges  draws  on  to  a  close. 

1  The  name  Jerubbaal,  identified  with  Gideon,  has  been  cited  to  show  that  the 
term  Baal  was  applied  to  Yahweh  at  this  tune.  But  there  are  many  more  instances 
of  names  containing  Yahweh  than  there  are  of  names  containing  Baal.  Gideon 
himself  had  a  son  whose  name  was  Jotham  (Judg.  9:5).  The  name  Jonathan,  meaning 
"Yahweh  has  given,"  was  borne  by  a  Danite  priest  (Judg.  18:30).  The  sons  of 
Samuel  were  called  Joel  and  Abijah,  signifying  respectively  "Yahweh  is  god"  and 
"Yahweh  is  father"  (I  Sam.  8:2). 


CHAPTER  XII 
SAUL'S  KINGDOM  IN  THE  HILLS 

The  Israelite  monarchy  was  at  first  a  highland  organization, 
having  no  capital  city,  and  standing  apart  from  the  Amorites.— 
One  of  the  forces  leading  to  the  development  of  the  Hebrew 
nation  was  the  pressure  of  hostile  groups  outside  the  territory 
of  Israel.  Chief  among  these  were  the  Philistines.  In  the 
same  way,  the  American  colonies  were  brought  together  by 
the  pressure  of  England.  Likewise,  Germany  was  consolidated 
by  the  hostility  of  Austria  and  France.  This  principle  is  of 
wide  application  in  the  development  of  social  groups.  Saul's 
kingdom  was  an  Israelite  undertaking,  carried  through  with- 
out reference  to  the  Amorites.  This  was  in  sharp  contrast 
with  the  earlier  movement  under  Abimelek,  in  which  the  two 
races  came  together,  but  failed  to  make  a  permanent  organiza- 
tion. The  kingdom  of  Abimelek  was,  indeed,  an  abortive 
undertaking, "  born  out  of  due  time."  But  Saul's  kingdom  was 
a  less  ambitious  project  than  Abimelek's,  for  it  was  limited  to 
the  Israelite  clans  of  the  hill-country.  Abimelek  had  his 
capital  in  the  Amorite  walled  city  of  Shechem;  but  the  simple 
headquarters  of  Saul  were  at  a  country  village  in  the  Israelite 
highlands.  Although  a  treaty  of  peace  had  been  recently 
made  between  the  two  races,  the  hour  for  their  union  had  not 
yet  struck.  The  kingdom  of  Saul  is  interestingly  treated  by 
the  First  Book  of  Samuel,  from  chap.  8  forward  to  the  close 
of  the  book. 

The  peace  treaty  with  the  Amorites  was  broken  by  King  Saul. — 
The  first  Israelite  king  was  unable  to  overcome  his  prejudice 
against  the  Amorite,  as  the  following  passage  indicates: 
"Now  the  Gibeonites  were  not  of  the  children  of  Israel,  but 

114 


SAUL'S  KINGDOM  IN  THE  HILLS  115 

of  the  remnant  of  the  Amorites.  And  the  children  of  Israel 
had  sworn  unto  them.  But  Saul  sought  to  slay  them  in  his 
zeal  for  the  children  of  Israel  and  Judah"  (II  Sam.  2i:2).1 
The  perfidy  of  Saul  and  his  followers  had,  of  course,  the  effect 
of  delaying  the  union  of  the  races.  Once  more  the  news  of 
Israelite  vindictiveness  was  carried  through  the  lowlands,  and 
heard  by  the  Amorites  with  horror.  The  Israelite  clans  had 
begun  the  trouble  in  the  first  place  by  attacking  the  country 
and  seizing  the  highlands  (Judg.,  chap.  i).  The  feud  had 
been  emphasized  by  the  great  Deborah  battle  at  Esdraelon 
(Judg.,  chaps.  4  and  5).  The  Israelites  had  been  faithless  to 
their  covenant  and  burned  Shechem  (Judg.,  chap.  9;  Gen., 
chap.  34).  They  had  also  destroyed  the  city  of  Laish  (Judg., 
chap.  18).  And  now,  in  disregard  of  a  solemn  treaty,  their 
king  had  led  an  attack  on  Gibeon  (II  Sam.,  chap.  21).  The 
peace  covenant  between  the  two  races  did,  indeed,  pave  the 
way  for  constructive  results;  but  Saul  was  not  the  kind  of 
statesman  to  deal  with  the  problem. 

The  Philistine  policy  was  to  break  Saul's  kingdom,  and  to 
hold  the  Israelites  and  Amorites  apart. — The  progress  of  the 
national  movement  in  Israel  interested  the  Philistines  greatly, 
for  they  dreaded  the  rise  of  a  strong  neighboring  state.  They 
did  not  approve  of  the  highland  kingdom  under  Saul;  and  they 
looked  with  apprehension  upon  the  peace  treaty  between 
Israel  and  the  Amorites.  Hence  the  Philistines  once  more 
took  the  field  against  the  highlanders,  and  shattered  the  power 
of  Saul  decisively  at  Jhe  battle  of  Gilboa.  The  scene  was 
a  memorable  one,  long  talked  about  at  the  firesides  of  Israel. 
Gilboa  stands  among  the  northern  hills  of  Ephraim,  abutting 
upon  the  plain  of  Esdraelon;  and  in  the  important  action 
occurring  at  this  place,  King  Saul  and  his  three  sons  were  slain. 

1  This  violation  of  the  treaty  seems  to  have  been  more  extensive  than  at  first 
appears.  The  city  of  Gibeon  was  in  league  with  a  number  of  Amorite  places,  among 
which  was  Beeroth  (Josh.  9:17).  It  is  said  that  "the  Beerothites  fled  to  Gittaim," 
and  that  two  of  the  Beerothites  murdered  one  of  Saul's  grandsons  (II  Sam.  4:1-7). 


n6  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

A  fact  of  large  meaning  is  found  in  the  treatment  of  the 
royal  corpses  by  the  Philistines.  The  victors  carried  the 
bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons  across  the  eastern  end  of  the  plain, 
and  fastened  them  to  the  wall  of  the  Amor  lie  city  of  Beth-shan 
(I  Sam.  31 :8-io).  This  important  city  was  one  of  the  many 
fortified  places  which  the  Israelites  had  failed  10  reduce  at  the 
time  of  the  original  invasion  (Judg.  1:27;  see  Table  II,  p.  106). 
Beth-shan  had  stood  behind  its  fortifications,  grim  and  hostile, 
through  the  rough  times  of  the  Judges  period;  and  the  feelings 
of  its  people  must  have  been  very  mixed  as  they  saw  the 
Philistines  draw  near  and  fasten  the  corpses  of  the  Israelite 
royal  family  to  the  city  wall.  By  this  act,  the  Philistines 
virtually  said  to  the  Amorites:  "When  you  make  treaties  with 
Israel,  you  are  dealing  wifh  a  people  who  are  too  weak  to 
defend  themselves,  and  who  will  not  respect  their  treaty 
obligations." 

The  Israelite  outlook  was  very  dark  when  the  star  of  Saul's 
kingdom  sank  in  the  dust  of  Gilboa. 

In  the  period  of  the  highland  kingdom,  Yahweh  remained  a 
local  deity;  and  the  hill-country  became  his  "inheritance."— 
The  Israelite  view  of  Yahweh  in  this  epoch  is  interestingly 
shown  by  certain  words  attributed  to  David  when  he  fled 
away  from  the  anger  of  King  Saul:  "They  have  driven  me 
out  this  day  that  I  should  not  cleave  unto  the  inheritance  of 
Yahweh,  saying,  Go,  serve  other  gods.  Now  therefore,  let 
not  my  blood  fall  to  the  earth  away  from  the  presence  of  Yah- 
weh" (I  Sam.  26:19-20).  In  this  passage  the  hill-country 
has  become  the  "inheritance  of  Yahweh."  To  leave  the 
highlands  of  Israel  was  to  go  into  the  territory  of  "other  gods," 
who  must  be  served  by  all  persons  that  entered  their  domains. 
To  depart  from  Israel  was  thus  the  same  as  going  away  from 
the  "presence,"  or  the  "face,"  of  Yahweh.1 

1  The  American  Revised  Version  translates  the  passage  from  David  as  we  give  it; 
but  the  King  James  Version  translates  it  in  words  that  are  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  sense  of  the  context. 


SAUL'S  KINGDOM  IN  THE  HILLS  117 

In  the  reign  of  Saul,  Yahweh  continued  to  be  identified  with 
the  "mishpat"  of  the  clan  brotherhood. — The  highland  kingdom 
was  little  more  than  a  loose,  weak  federation;  and  in  spite  of 
their  national  movement,  the  Israelites  remained  in  the  clan 
stage  of  progress  all  through  the  reign  of  Saul.  In  brief,  they 
had  not  yet  come  to  terms  with  civilization  in  general,  nor 
with  Amorite  civilization  in  particular.  This  primitive  com- 
munity, with  its  ideas  of  what  was  "right"  between  man 
and  man,  worshiped  Yahweh  as  its  divine  patron  and  the 
judge  of  its  morality.  Thus  we  see  that  three  successive 
historical  epochs  emphasized  the  character  of  Yahweh  as 
a  god  of  the  primitive,  brotherhood  mishpat — (i)  the  nomadic 
period  in  the  Arabian  wilderness,  (2)  the  period  of  the  Judges, 
(3)  the  period  of  the  highland  kingdom.  Throughout  all 
this  time,  from  days  immemorial  straight  up  to  the  death  of 
Saul  at  Gilboa,  the  clan  chiefs  presided  over  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  in  the  name  of  Yahweh.  The  courts  operated 
not  primarily  to  manufacture  law,  but  simply  to  guarantee 
the  application  of  old  customs  to  all  cases.  Every  man  who 
had  reached  the  years  of  discernment  knew  in  a  general  way 
what  the  clan  morality  demanded.  Therefore  we  must  fix 
clearly  in  mind  that,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  situation,  the 
mishpat  of  Yahweh  was  no  secret.  It  was  the  common  property 
of  the  clan  conscience. 

Yahweh  therefore  continued  apart  from  the  Amorite  Baals 
during  the  time  of  Saul. — We  have  seen  that  the  final  "putting- 
away"  of  Amorite  gods  is  placed  in  the  time  just  prior  to  the 
establishment  of  the  monarchy  (I  Sam.  7:4).  "The  contest 
with  the  Canaanite  religion,"  says  Marti,  "naturally  played 
an  important  part  in  the  struggle  for  the  possession  of  the 
country."1  In  line  with  the  same  view,  Kuenen  has  observed 
that  the  struggle  for  nationality  must  have  been  coupled  with 
a  more  or  less  pronounced  aversion  to  the  local  Canaanite  cults, 

1  Marti,  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament  (London,  1907),  p.  98. 


u8  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

and  with  a  desire  to  preserve  Israel's  religious  individuality.1 
There  is  no  mention  of  the  Baals  in  the  narratives  of  the  high- 
land kingdom;  and  the  Amorite  gods  evidently  stood  outside 
the  calculations  of  the  Israelites  at  this  time. 

By  the  latter  part  of  the  Judges  period,  the  highlanders 
had  already  begun  to  bring  offerings  of  bread  and  wine  up 
to  the  Shiloh  sanctuary  (I  Sam.  1:24).  For  Yahweh  had 
now  become  a  god  of  the  hill-country.  The  clouds  were 
believed  to  drop  water  at  the  presence  of  Yahweh,  in  the  "Song 
of  Deborah,"  the  oldest  extant  piece  of  Hebrew  literature 
(Judg.,  chap.  5).  He  sends  dew  on  Gideon's  fleece  of  wool, 
as  it  lies  on  the  highland  threshing  floor  in  the  heart  of 
Canaan  (Judg.  6:36  f.).  It  was  he,  not  the  Baals,  who  sent 
the  rains  that  fertilized  the  crops  and  made  the  grass  to  spring 
forth  in  the  uplands  of  Ephraim,  Gilead,  and  Judah.  The 
bread  of  the  "presence"  that  stood  before  the  altar  of  Yahweh 
at  Nob  was  the  fruit  of  the  ground  (I  Sam.  21:6).  Bread  and 
wine,  both  coming  from  the  soil,  were  offered  at  the  holy 
place  in  Bethel  (I  Sam.  10:3);  and  it  cannot  be  claimed 
that  the  sacrifices  at  the  high  place  in  Ramah  were  limited 
to  flesh  food  (I  Sam.  9:111.).  Yahweh  had  conquered  the 
highlands,  and  wrested  them  from  the  power  of  the  Amorite 
Baals.  "As  Semitic  tribes  migrated  and  settled  in  new 
environments,  their  deities  naturally  took  on  many  new  func- 
tions or  attributes  from  the  new  surroundings."2 

'Kuenen,  Religion  of  Israel  (London,  1874),  Vol.  I,  p.  312. 

3  Barton,  "Yahweh  before  Moses,"  a  paper  in  the  Toy  Anniversary  Volume. 

Budde's  view  is  unnatural,  that  Yahweh  got  his  function  as  a  rainmaker  at  second- 
hand from  the  Amorite  Baals.  If  Yahweh  got  his  attributes  in  this  way,  how  did  the 
Baals  get  their  powers  ? — from  still  other  gods,  ad  injinitum  ?  There  was  little  or  no 
contact  between  the  Yahweh  and  Baal  cults  during  the  Judges  period  and  the  time  of 
Saul's  kingdom.  The  entanglement  of  the  two  cults  came  later,  and  even  then  was 
limited  to  certain  parts  of  the  country  and  certain  classes  of  the  people.  In  some 
Hebrew  minds,  the  distinction  between  Yahweh  and  the  Baals  remained  a  vital,  out- 
standing fact  straight  along  through  the  history.  For  instance,  Hosea  declares  on 
behalf  of  Yahweh,  "I  gave  her  the  grain,  and  the  new  wine,  and  the  oil"  (Hos.  2:8); 
and  this  view  at  length  prevailed.  Cf.  Gen.  7:4;  27:27,28;  Exod.Q:33;  Deut.  7:13; 
33:13-16,28;  I  Kings  17:1;  18:44;  Amos  4: 7;  Jer.  14:22. 


SAUL'S  KINGDOM  IN  THE  HILLS  119 

The  god  of  Israel  was  recognized  in  many  personal  names 
during  this  period.  The  name  of  the  crown  prince,  Jonathan, 
signifies  "  Yahweh  has  given"  (I  Sam.  14:39).  The  name  of 
the  priest  Ahijah  means  "Yahweh  is  protector"  (I  Sam. 
14:3).  That  of  Joab,  the  warrior,  means  "Yahweh  is  father" 
(I  Sam.  26:6).1 

1  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Yahweh  shared  with  the  Baals  the  religious 
devotion  of  Israel  during  the  time  of  the  highland  kingdom.  The  idea  that  Amorite 
Baal-worship  was  necessarily  involved  whenever  an  Israelite  sowed  seed  in  the  uplands 
in  the  reign  of  Saul  is  an  assumption  for  which  there  is  absolutely  no  warrant  in  the 
sources. 

The  name  Ishbaal,  which  was  given  to  one  of  the  sons  of  Saul  (II  Sam.  2:8) 
signifies  "man  of  Baal."  This  name  in  II  Samuel  has  been  changed  by  the  zeal 
of  some  later  copyist  into  Ish-bosheth,  or  "man  of  shame"  (cf.  I  Chron.  8:33).  If 
the  Baal  in  question  be  Yahweh,  the  fact  indicates  merely  that  this  generic  term  was 
applied  to  him,  but  not  that  he  had  suddenly  forfeited  his  "identity"  through  con- 
fusion with  the  many  Baals  of  the  Amorites.  The  term  baal,  as  we  have  seen,  denoted 
the  father  of  a  family  in  Israel  (chap,  vi,  supra);  and  so  its  application  to  Yahweh 
may  have  been  suggested  as  much  by  Israelite  analogy  as  by  Amorite  usage.  In  any 
case,  the  Baal-names  weigh  no  more  heavily  in  the  scales  of  evidence  than  do  the 
Yah  web-names;  and  the  highland  kingdom,  like  the  Judges  period,  yields  more  of 
the  latter  than  of  the  former.  Professor  Addis  writes,  on  the  matter  of  names, 
"Nothing  can  be  made  of  the  fact  that  Hebrew  proper  names  are  sometimes  com- 
pounded with  Baal"  (Hebrew  Religion  [London,  1906],  pp.  106  £.). 


CHAPTER  XIII 
COALESCENCE  OF  THE  RACES 

The  Hebrew  nation  came  into  existence  under  the  house  of 
David,  at  the  point  of  coalescence  between  Israelites  and  Amo- 
rites. — The  Hebrew  nation,  as  known  to  world  history,  did  not 
arise  until  Israelites  and  Amorites  were  brought  under  the 
cover  of  one  political  roof.  The  extension  of  the  framework 
of  the  monarchy  was  the  task  of  David,  one  of  the  most 
astute  statesmen  that  ever  crossed  the  stage  of  history.  With 
great  boldness,  David  located  his  capital  at  one  of  the  Amorite 
walled  cities  which  had  not  been  reduced  by  the  Israelites  at 
the  time  of  the  original  invasion.  This  place,  known  as 
"Jebus"  and  also  as  "Jerusalem,"  had  remained  a  foreign 
city  up  to  the  time  of  David.  The  new  king  took  this  place, 
and  occupied  its  fort,  Zion,  calling  it  the  "City  of  David." 
Instead  of  exterminating  the  inhabitants,  after  the  manner  of 
Saul,  David  spared  the  Amorite  population  and  contracted 
state-marriages  with  the  leading  families  (II  Sam.  5:6-13). 
In  line  with  the  same  policy,  and  as  a  further  token  of  good 
faith,  David  gave  up  to  the  Amorites  of  Gibeon  a  number  of 
the  grandsons  of  Saul  for  execution.  This  he  did  by  way  of 
atonement  for  Saul's  perfidy  in  breaking  the  treaty  with  the 
Amorites  (II  Sam.,  chap.  2i).x 

1  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  David  protected  himself  in  this  action  by  consulting  the 
ephod  oracle  of  Yahweh;  but  this  particular  item  of  evidence  should  be  taken  in 
connection  with  the  whole  situation.  "Religion  in  antiquity,  particularly  official 
religion,  usually  gave  its  oracles  in  accordance  with  royal  or  priestly  policy." — Good- 
speed,  History  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  (New  York,  1906),  p.  288.  To  the 
same  effect,  see  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt  (New  York,  1905),  pp.  522,  523.  Also, 
on  Greek  oracles,  Jebb,  Essays  (Cambridge,  1907),  pp.  156  f.  Professor  Jebb  writes, 
"There  were  occasions  on  which  an  oracle  became,  in  a  strict  sense,  the  organ  of  a 
political  party."  He  adds,  rather  profanely,  that  the  god  "Apollo,  in  short,  kept 
up  a  series  of  most  urgent  leading  articles."  We  have  discussed  the  ephod  oracle  of 
Yahweh  in  Part  II,  chap.  viii. 

120 


COALESCENCE  OF  THE  RACES  121 

The  general  situation  is  clearly  shown  by  a  detached 
notice  inserted  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  by  a  later  hand,  as 
follows:  "As  for  the  Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
the  children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  them  out;  but  the 
Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Judah  at  Jerusalem 
unto  this  day"  (Josh.  15:63).  An  instance  of  the  peaceful 
relations  established  between  the  races  appears  in  the  case  of 
Araunah  the  Jebusite,  from  whom  David  bought  some  real- 
estate.  Araunah  calls  David,  "My  lord,  the  king"  (II  Sam. 
24:16,  21).  It  is  not  surprising  to  find  persons  from  the 
Canaanite  cities  in  David's  army  (II  Sam.  23:32,  37);  nor  is 
it  strange  that  a  general  census  in  this  reign  accounted  for 
Canaanites  as  well  as  for  Israelites  (II  Sam.  24:  i  ff.). 

David  was  followed  on  the  Hebrew  throne  by  his  son 
Solomon.  This  king  was  not  born  among  the  peasantry  of  the 
hills,  like  his  father,  but  in  the  Amorite  city  of  Jerusalem. 
Under  Solomon  the  national  process  went  to  its  logical  issue. 
The  new  monarch  set  up  the  administration  of  the  kingdom 
not  only  in  his  native  city,  Jerusalem,  but  in  a  number  of 
Amorite  cities,  such  as  Beth-shemesh,  Taanach,  Megiddo, 
Shaalbim,  Hazor,  Gezer,  Beth-shean,  etc.  (I  Kings  4:1,  2,  9, 
n,  12,  and  4: is).1 

It  is  clear  that  under  Solomon  the  development  of  national- 
ity came  to  a  climax.  In  this  reign  the  Hebrew  kingdom 
took  the  form  of  an  organization  including  all  the  social  factors 
that  enter  into  the  composition  of  a  mature  state.  It  was  not 
merely  a  loose  confederacy  of  shepherds  and  farmers,  as  in  the 
time  of  Saul.  For  the  monarchy  now  embraced  not  only  the 
more  primitive  and  backward  classes,  but  merchants,  artisans, 
bookkeepers,  teachers,  and  financiers;  and  it  entered  with 
some  abruptness  into  the  circle  of  oriental  civilization 
(I  Kings  4 : 1-5 ;  9:28;  10 : 14-28) .  The  fact  that  Israel  finally 

'Compare  the  list  of  unconquered  Amorite  cities  in  Judg.,  chap,  i,  as  quoted 
above,  p.  106. 


122  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

came  to  disaster  is  no  proof  that  the  union  of  the  races  in  a 
single  state  was  a  bad  policy.  It  simply  proves  that  nobody 
was  able  to  cope  with  the  resulting  situation. 

The  race  distinction  of  the  Amorites  was  lost  within  the 
mass  of  the  Hebrew  nation. — The  sociology  of  the  Israelite 
invasion  of  Canaan  was  precisely  opposite  to  that  created 
by  the  Norman  invasion  of  England.  In  the  case  of  the 
Normans,  the  invaders  found  a  social  group  already  in 
existence.  The  English  nation  was  organized  under  a  king 
before  the  Normans  crossed  the  channel;  so  that  Norman 
life  adjusted  itself  within  the  national  mold,  or  matrix, 
furnished  by  English  life.  "As  early  as  the  days  of  Henry 
the  Second,"  writes  Green,  "the  descendants  of  Norman  and 
Englishman  had  become  indistinguishable.  Both  found  a 
bond  in  a  common  English  feeling  and  English  patriotism."1 
In  England,  therefore,  the  invaders  took  the  name  of  the  older 
inhabitants. 

But  the  Israelite  invaders  of  Canaan  did  not  find  a  national 
group  in  possession  of  the  land.  In  this  case,  it  was  the 
invaders,  and  not  the  older  inhabitants,  who  supplied  the 
organization.  The  national  movement  started  among  the 
Israelites  of  the  highlands,  not  among  the  Amorites  of  the 
lowlands;  it  was  Israel  that  gave  the  first  national  rulers, 
and  supplied  the  national  religion.  As  a  result,  the  older 
population  at  length  lost  its  identity  in  the  mass  of  the  Hebrew 
nation,  and  became  Israelite  in  name.  In  these  contrasted 
historic  situations,  the  Hebrew  and  the  English,  the  objective 
circumstances  were  precisely  opposite;  and  the  key  to  the 
facts  in  each  case  is  found  in  the  group  organization.  The 
Amorites  intermarried  with  the  Israelites;  and  the  new  genera- 
tions called  themselves  Israelites,  or  Hebrews,  and  ignored 
the  Amorite  side  of  their  ancestry.  The  invasion  of  the  land 
by  the  Israelites  projected  itself  into  bold  relief  against  the 

1  Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  Book  III,  chap.  i. 


COALESCENCE  OF  THE  RACES  123 

historical  background,  while  the  intermingling  of  the  races 
made  no  impression  upon  later  generations. 

All  these  facts  resulted  in  the  tradition  that  finally  became 
current,  in  which  the  Israelites  were  said  to  have  triumphantly 
swept  away  and  exterminated  the  Amorites.  Everybody 
of  any  consequence  wanted  to  be  known  as  a  Hebrew,  or 
Israelite,  descended  straight  from  Jacob,  the  ancient  hero, 
who  took  the  country  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Amorite  with  his 
sword  and  with  his  bow  (Gen.  48:22).  The  idea  that  the 
earlier  population  was  totally  destroyed  appears,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  in  the  late  Book  of  Joshua  (see  above,  chap,  ii) ; 
but  this  is  on  the  basis  of  popular  tradition.  To  the  same 
effect,  Amos  declares  on  behalf  of  Yahweh,  "Yet  destroyed 
I  the  Amorite  before  them,  whose  height  was  like  the  height 
of  the  cedars,  and  he  was  strong  as  the  oaks.  Yet  I  destroyed 
his  fruit  from  above  and  his  roots  from  beneath"  (Amos 
2:9).  The  idea  that  the  Amorites  were  destroyed,  root  and 
branch,  is  indeed  one  of  the  vague,  popular  notions  that 
survive  down  to  the  present  day.  Unless  we  take  the  trouble 
to  look  below  the  surface,  and  hold  the  fundamental  facts 
in  mind,  we  miss  the  real  merits  of  the  Bible  situation  as 
it  unrolls  before  us. 

Under  the  house  of  David,  the  political  center  of  gravity  shifted 
from  the  Israelite  highlands  to  the  Amorite  walled  cities. — 
We  noticed  that  King  Saul  had  no  fortified  capital;  and  this 
no  doubt  was  one  element  of  the  weakness  that  brought  him 
to  ruin.  It  now  becomes  of  importance  to  observe  that 
under  the  house  of  David  the  political  center  of  gravity  in 
Israel  underwent  a  remarkable  change  of  location.  The 
first  two  kings  of  Israel — Saul  and  David — were  born  in 
country  villages  in  the  hills,  the  one  in  Gibeah,  the  other  in 
Bethlehem;  but  the  third  king,  Solomon,  was  a  native  of  the 
still  Amorite  city  of  Jerusalem.  This  transfer  of  the  seat  of 
government  was  in  response  to  military  necessity.  The 


i24  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

kingdom  was  constantly  menaced  by  hostile  powers;  and  no 
administration  could  be  successfully  established  among  the 
villages  of  the  open,  unprotected  highlands.  Thus,  the 
national  machinery  was  forced  into  connection  with  the 
ancient  fortified  centers,  where  it  found  the  only  security 
under  which  it  could  guard  the  entire  land.  The  affairs  of 
the  nation  were  now  directed  more  and  more  from  the  city 
standpoint;  and  the  two  races  were  soon  welded  into  the 
Hebrew  nation.  The  Amorite  blood,  the  Amorite  point  of 
view,  and  the  Amorite  gods  remained  as  factors  in  the  situa- 
tion; but  the  older  inhabitants  themselves  coalesced  with 
the  new  and  vanished  from  history. 

Bible  students  have  been  thrown  off  their  guard  by  the 
absorption  of  the  Amorites. — The  disappearance  of  the  older 
population  of  the  land  within  the  mass  of  the  Hebrew 
state  has  been  the  cause  of  much  confusion  of  ideas — first, 
among  the  compilers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  second, 
among  those  who  have  studied  and  read  the  Bible  in  all  suc- 
ceeding ages.  The  Amorites  were  cast  out  and  utterly 
destroyed;  yet  they  rose  miraculously  from  the  dead.  They 
were  demolished  forever  by  mighty  portents  from  heaven; 
yet  they  remained  in  possession  of  numerous  walled  cities. 
This  fundamental  variance  of  ideas  is  not  adjusted  anywhere 
in  the  Bible.  The  compilers  and  authors  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  not  scientific  historians  in  the  modern  sense. 
They  worked  in  the  interests  of  moral  and  religious  edifica- 
tion; and  they  were  so  absorbed  in  the  spiritual  possibilities 
of  Israelite  history  that  they  paid  small  heed  to  the  material 
facts.  This  is  nothing  unusual  among  ancient  writers;  nor 
indeed  is  it  strange  at  any  period  of  history;  for  it  has  often 
come  to  pass  that  several  competing  versions  of  the  same  event 
have  been  afloat  at  the  same  time.  If  it  should  be  inquired 
how  the  compilers  of  the  Bible  could  have  permitted  these 
rival  accounts  to  stand  in  the  canon  of  sacred  Scripture,  the 


COALESCENCE  OF  THE  RACES  125 

answer  is,  that  the  Bible  was  not  arranged  and  compiled  at 
a  single  stroke;  nor  was  it  all  "officially  adopted"  by  the 
ruling  powers  at  the  same  time.  It  is  the  result  of  the  labor 
of  many  minds,  extending  over  hundreds  of  years.  It  rep- 
resents a  very  gradual  accumulation  of  literary  material; 
and  even  if  anybody  had  wanted  to  "edit"  the  Bible  into 
scientific  and  historical  accuracy  and  consistency  in  the 
modern  sense,  the  circumstances  of  its  production  would 
have  made  such  a  thing  impossible.  What  we  have  to  bear 
in  mind  in  all  these  critical  studies  is,  that  the  Bible  has 
actually  fulfilled  the  religious  purpose  for  which  it  was  written, 
and  that  science  and  philosophy,  no  matter  what  they  may 
do,  cannot  obliterate  this  great  fact. 

Nevertheless,  the  age  in  which  we  live  demands  that,  if 
possible,  the  embarrassments  of  the  biblical  narratives  be  re- 
solved by  careful,  scientific  study.  This  becomes  necessary 
more  and  more  if  the  Bible  is  to  be  accepted  as  authori- 
tative by  the  future.  The  conception  of  an  essentially  homo- 
geneous Israelite  people,  descended  straight  from  the  twelve 
sons  of  Jacob,  has  been  standing  in  the  minds  of  Bible  students 
and  Christian  people  as  a  "fixed  idea."  This  idea  has  not 
only  shaped  the  popular  thought,  but  it  has  influenced  even 
professional  scholars  more  fully  than  they  have  always  been 
aware.1  And  so  long  as  this  initial  difficulty  is  not  fully 
exploited  and  emphasized,  we  cannot  hope  for  any  further 
solid  progress,  either  scientific  or  popular,  in  the  understand- 
ing of  Scripture. 

An  instance  of  the  confusion  of  ideas  about  Israelites  and 
Amorites. — One  of  the  writers  who  have  promoted  confusion 
of -mind  in  regard  to  the  national  history  is  the  author  of  the 
following  passage: 

1  Thus,  modern  criticism  has  pointed  out  the  double  ancestry  of  the  Hebrew 
nation,  time  and  again.  But,  on  the  whole,  this  fact  has  been  brought  forward  only 
to  be  mentioned  and  then  retired  into  the  background. 


126  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

As  for  all  the  people  that  were  left  of  the  Amorites  ....  which 
were  not  of  the  children  of  Israel,  their  children  that  were  left  after  them 
in  the  land,  whom  the  children  of  Israel  were  not  able  utterly  to  destroy: 
of  them  did  Solomon  raise  a  levy  of  bondservants  unto  this  day.  But  of 
the  children  of  Israel  did  Solomon  make  no  bondservants.  But  they 
were  the  men  of  war,  and  his  servants,  and  his  princes,  and  his  captains, 
and  the  rulers  of  his  chariots  and  of  his  horsemen  (I  Kings  9:20-22; 
cf.  Lev.  25:39-46). 

According  to  this  writer,  the  Israelites  remained  in  the 
upper  class,  in  a  very  dignified  social  state,  while  the  Amo- 
rites were  a  distinct  "  remnant,"  reduced  to  bondage.  But 
the  effort  of  this  writer  to  show  that  Solomon  did  not  enslave 
and  oppress  the  Israelites  is  impeached  by  other  and  far 
higher  authorities.  There  is  clear  evidence  that  Solomon's 
forced  labor  was  done  by  persons  of  Israelite  blood  (  I  Kings 
11:28;  5:i3f.),  and  that  his  organized  oppression  led,  among 
other  causes,  to  the  revolt  of  the  northern  tribes  after  his 
death.  Thus  the  son  and  successor  of  this  king  is  reported 
as  expressing  himself  to  the  Israelites  in  the  following  words : 
"My  father  made  your  yoke  heavy;  but  I  will  add  to  your 
yoke.  My  father  chastised  you  with  whips;  but  I  will  chas- 
tise you  with  scorpions"  (I  Kings  12:14).  A  writer  who 
supposes  that  Solomon  raised  his  levies  of  bondservants 
only  from  the  Amorites,  and  that  the  children  of  the  former 
inhabitants  remained  apart  from  Israel,  cannot  be  taken  as 
a  guide  in  the  study  of  Hebrew  social  development.  Although 
a  few  isolated  Amorite  communities  may  have  remained  in 
the  time  of  Solomon,  the  great  mass  of  biblical  evidence 
proves  that  the  two  races  were  fusing  under  the  house  of 
David,  and  that  no  sharp  line  of  distinction  could  then  be 
drawn  between  them. 

David  brought  the  "Ark  of  Yahweh"  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem; 
and  a  temple  was  built  for  it  by  Solomon. — During  the  Judges 
period,  the  ark,  or  chest,  of  Yahweh  was  a  part  of  the  temple 
furniture  at  Shiloh,  in  the  Ephraimite  hills.  This  object  was 


COALESCENCE  OF  THE  RACES  127 

captured  in  battle  by  the  Philistines,  and  then  left  in  the 
Amorite  city  of  Kiriath-jearim,  a  place  which  was  under 
Philistine  suzerainty.1  After  the  election  of  David,  he 
advanced  upon  Kiriath-jearim  with  an  armed  force,  and 
carried  the  ark  away.  The  sacred  box  was  then  placed  in  a 
tent  in  the  Israelite  quarter  at  Jerusalem  (II  Sam.  6:1-17). 
In  the  following  reign  it  was  deposited  carefully  within  the 
shelter  of  a  splendid  new  temple  (I  Kings  8:1). 

Neither  David  nor  Solomon  made  any  attempt  to  abolish 
the  numerous  local  sanctuaries  of  Yahweh  that  were  scattered 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  The  people 
continued  to  worship  Yahweh  at  these  ancient  village  churches 
just  as  they  did  in  earlier  times.2  There  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  David  knew  anything  about  the  Deuteronomic 
obligation  of  the  one  legitimate,  central  house  of  worship 
(Deut.  12:10-14.  Cf.  chap,  ii,  supra.} 

The  ark  was  taken  to  Jerusalem  in  order  to  promote  the 
growth  of  national  sentiment.  This  holy  object,  which  the 
Israelites  had  venerated  at  the  temple  of  Shiloh,  furnished 
a  visible  connection  with  the  past;  and  it  now  offered  a  point 
of  attachment  for  the  patriotic  feelings  of  the  newly  estab- 
lished Hebrew  nation. 

1  The  improbable  story  of  the  return  of  the  ark  by  the  Philistines  occurs  in  a 
passage  that  has  been  tampered  with  by  a  late  priestly  writer.  The  "  Baale-Judah ' ' 
of  II  Sam.  6:2  is  the  same  as  Kiriath-jearim  (cf.  I  Chron.  13:5,  6;  Josh.  15:9,  10; 
I  Sam.  7:1). 

3  "How  far  Israel  actually  worshiped  the  local  Baals  at  these  sanctuaries  is 
uncertain." — Robinson,  Commentary  on  Deuteronomy  (New  York),  p.  115 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  "INCREASE"  OF  YAHWEH1 

The  evolution  of  ancient  society  brought  with  it  an  evolution 
of  ideas  about  the  gods. — It  is  well  known  among  students  of 
the  history  of  religion  that  the  coalescence  of  ancient  social 
groups  into  larger  groups  always  brought  with  it  the  rise  of 
some  particular  deity,  thrusting  the  cult  of  that  god  up  to  a 
new  eminence  of  distinction. 

Thus,  when  the  Assyrians  founded  their  national  govern- 
ment, and  when  their  king  became  supreme  over  other  kings, 
their  god  Ashur  became  supreme  over  other  gods.2  In 
Babylonia,  Marduk,  the  god  of  the  city  of  Babylon,  rose  to 
lordship  over  his  local  rivals.3  "The  priests  of  Marduk," 
writes  Jastrow,  "set  the  fashion  in  theological  thought.  So 
far  as  possible,  the  ancient  traditions  and  myths  were  reshaped 
so  as  to  contribute  to  the  glory  of  Marduk.  The  chief  part 
in  the  work  of  creation  is  assigned  to  him."4  It  was  the 
pious  belief  of  Hammurabi  that  he  was  the  favorite  of  Mar- 
duk, and  that  the  power  of  this  god  brought  success  to  the 
Babylonian  king.  In  the  same  way,  the  Egyptian  deity 
Amon,  originally  the  god  of  the  city  of  Thebes,  rose  to  an 
imperial  place  as  Thebes  advanced  in  importance.  "The 
triumph  of  a  Theban  family,"  writes  Breasted,  "had  brought 

with  it  the  supremacy  of  Amon It  was  not  until  now 

that  he  became  the  great  god  of  the  state He  now  rose 

1  The  term  "increase"  comes  from  Jeremiah,  as  below. 

2  Sayce,  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  (New  York,  1900),  p.  256. 

*  Goodspeed,  History  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  (New  York,  1906),  p.  115. 
«  Jastrow,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  (Boston,  1898),  p.  691.     Cf.  chaps, 
vii  and  xxi. 

128 


THE  "INCREASE"  OF  YAHWEH  129 

to  a  unique  and  supreme  position  of  unprecedented  splen- 
dor."1 In  illustration  of  the  same  principle,  Steindorff  writes: 

In  the  beginning  there  was  no  uniformity  of  religion  in  Egypt. 
Every  city,  every  town,  every  hamlet,  possessed  its  own  protecting  deity, 
its  own  patron.  To  him  the  inhabitants  turned  in  the  hour  of  need  or 
danger,  imploring  help;  by  sacrifice  and  prayer  they  sought  to  win  his 

favor.     In  his  hand  lay  the  weal  and  woe  of  the  community The 

Egyptian  religion  entered  upon  a  new  phase  of  its  development  in  the 
"Middle  Kingdom,"  when  the  political  center  of  gravity  of  the  realm 
was  generally  shifted  southward.  During  the  internal  confusion  which 
had  brought  the  "Old  Kingdom"  to  its  end,  the  Upper  Egyptian  city 
Thebes  had  acquired  power  and  reputation.  It  was  by  Theban  princes 
that  the  reorganization  of  the  state  was  successfully  carried  out;  and 
though  the  kings  of  Dynasty  XII  transferred  their  residence  to  the 
lake  district  of  the  Fayoum,  the  city  from  which  they  had  sprung 
remained  the  object  of  their  fostering  care.  The  Theban  local  divinity, 
Amon,  identified  with  the  sun-god  and  transformed  into  Amon-Re,  was 
set  above  other  gods,  and  honored  by  new  temples  and  costly  gifts. 
Later  on,  Thebes  was  the  headquarters  of  the  struggle  against  the 
Hyksos,  and  after  its  termination,  the  chief  city  of  the  "New  King- 
dom." ....  Thus  in  the  "New  Kingdom,"  Amon  became  the  national 
god  of  Egypt.2 

The  rise  of  the  Hebrew  nation  brought  with  it  the  rise  of  Yah- 
weh  among  the  gods  of  the  ancient  world. — The  foregoing  in- 
stances help  us  to  see  by  analogy  how  the  development  of 
the  Hebrew  nation  supplied  the  objective  social  basis  for  the 
elevation  of  Yahweh  among  the  gods. 

Reverting  to  the  desert  period  a  moment,  the  lowest  level 
to  which  we  can  trace  Yahweh  is  that  of  a  local  deity  of  the 
wilderness  with  his  seat  on  Mount  Sinai.  It  was  here  that 
one  or  more  of  the  Israelite  clans  entered  into  covenant  with 
the  Kenites,  and  became  worshipers  of  Yahweh.  As  Jere- 
miah says,  "Israel  was  consecrated  to  Yahweh — the  first- 

1  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt  (New  York,  1905),  p.  248. 

a  Steindorff,  The  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians  (New  York,  1905),  pp.  17,  52,  53. 
Cf.  Erman,  Handbook  of  Egyptian  Religion  (London,  1907),  pp.  19,  57,  58,  81. 


i3o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

fruits  of  his  increase"  (Jer.  2:3).  Elsewhere  it  is  said  that 
Yahweh  "became"  the  god  of  Israel,  and  that  he  "chose" 
Israel  in  order  to  make  himself  a  "reputation,"  or  a  "name" 
(II  Sam.  7:23;  cf.  Neh.  9:10).  The  covenant  in  the  desert 
is  rightly  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  as  marking  the  early  steps 
of  the  "increase"  of  Yahweh. 

During  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  of  the  highland  king- 
dom, Yahweh  remained  a  god  of  hill  villages  and  nomadic 
tent  dwellers  in  the  uplands.  But  after  the  coalescence  of 
Israelites  and  Amorites  in  the  Hebrew  nation,  the  cult  of 
Yahweh  sprang  into  a  new  importance  and  acquired  more 
weight.  The  term  Israel  now  represented  far  more  than  at 
first.  The  new  generations  began  to  think  not  only  that 
Yahweh  had  conquered  the  hill-country  as  his  "inheritance," 
but  that  his  power  had  given  Israel  the  entire  land  of  Canaan. 
Thus  Yahweh  advanced  from  the  position  of  a  clan  god  to 
that  of  a  national  deity. 

But  this  was  not  all.  The  Hebrew  nation  hardly  came  into 
existence  under  David  before  it  acquired  an  imperial  position. 
The  Philistines  were  vanquished  so  decisively  that  they  ceased 
to  harass  Israel.  The  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Edomites,  and 
Arameans  were  defeated  and  put  to  tribute.  Thus  we  read : 

It  came  to  pass  that  David  smote  the  Philistines  and  subdued  them. 

....  And  he  smote  Moab And  the  Moabites  became  slaves  to 

David  and  brought  tribute.     David  smote  also  Hadadezer  the  son  of 

Rehob,  king  of  Zobah And  when  the  Arameans  of  Damascus 

came  to  succor  Hadadezer  king  of  Zobah,  David  smote  of  the  Arameans 
two  and  twenty  thousand  men.  Then  David  put  garrisons  in  Aram  of 
Damascus;  and  the  Arameans  became  slaves  to  David  and  brought 
tribute.  And  Yahweh  gave  victory  to  David  whithersoever  he  went. 
....  And  he  put  garrisons  in  Edom  ....  and  all  the  Edomites 
became  slaves  to  David.  And  Yahweh  gave  victory  to  David  whithersoever 
he  went  (II  Sam.  8: 1-14). 

Thus  we  see  that  just  as  David  became  "king  of  kings," 
so  Yahweh  became  "god  of  gods."  The  rise  of  David  pro- 


THE   " INCREASE"  OF  YAHWEH  131 

moted  the  rise  of  Yahweh;  and  the  king  himself  believed 
that  the  god  of  Israel  was  helping  him  wherever  he  went. 
As  a  matter  of  sober  fact,  the  religions  of  ancient  society  did 
lead  to  victory  by  the  coherence  and  organization  which  they 
gave.  Soldiers  were  always  rallied  to  battle  hi  the  name  of  a 
god;  and  the  stronger  the  common  enthusiasm  for  the  god, 
the  more  effective  the  army  became.  Until  we  saturate  our- 
selves in  the  atmosphere  of  the  ancient  world,  this  religious 
phenomenon  can  hardly  be  grasped  in  all  its  force  and  sig- 
nificance. The  same  principle  was  everywhere  at  work  among 
the  ancient  states.  The  quotation  just  given  from  the  Book 
of  Samuel  with  reference  to  David  and  Yahweh  can  be 
matched,  almost  word  for  word,  from  the  inscriptions  of 
Egypt,  Babylonia,  and  Assyria.  All  the  ancient  kings  believed 
their  gods  were  assisting  them;  and  they  constantly  invoked 
the  presence  and  support  of  these  divine  helpers.  Religion 
was  a  fact  of  tremendous  reality  and  importance.  The  gods 
came  to  their  votaries  in  dreams;  and  at  moments  of  high 
excitement,  such  as  the  crisis  of  battle,  some  persons  actually 
thought  they  saw  their  divinity  leading  the  charge  against 
the  opposing  army  and  its  gods. 

From  these  facts  and  examples  we  can  see  how  the  social 
development  of  Israel  supplied  the  external  basis  for  the 
"increase"  of  Yahweh.  In  the  mind  of  the  Hebrews,  their 
god  had  shown  himself  superior  to  the  gods  of  all  peoples, 
with  whom  Israel  had  thus  far  come  in  contact.  The  deities 
of  neighboring  peoples  fell  below  the  level  of  Yahweh,  who 
was  plainly  showing  himself  to  be  a  "god  of  hosts,  mighty  in 
battle."  It  is  to  the  period  of  the  Davidic  empire  that  the 
"Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh"  is  probably  to  be  referred. 
The  Israelite  mind  at  this  time  could  easily  draw  the  infer- 
ence that  Yahweh's  power  exceeded  that  of  all  the  gods. 
For  "Yahweh  gave  David  the  victory  whithersoever  he 
went";  and  the  peoples  with  whom  Israel  did  not  come  into 


i3 2  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

conflict  at  this  particular  time  were  either  too  far  away,  or 
too  feeble,  to  make  any  impression  upon  the  religious  con- 
sciousness of  Israel.  The  expansion  of  the  idea  of  Yahweh 
had  therefore  an  ample  basis  in  the  social  condition  of  the 
Hebrew  kingdom. 

The  increase  of  Yahweh,  as  thus  treated,  cannot  explain  the 
development  of  Bible  religion. — The  circumstances  wherein 
Yahweh  started  on  the  way  to  his  position  as  "Lord  of  lords" 
bring  to  view  only  a  single  thread,  or  phase,  of  the  process 
that  we  are  investigating.  The  fact  that  calls  most  loudly 
for  explanation,  as  we  have  pointed  out  several  times,  is  not 
the  superiority  of  Yahweh  over  other  gods  in  point  of  power, 
but  in  point  of  the  moral  character  finally  connected  with 
him  as  the  Redeemer  of  mankind.  The  tendency  toward 
monotheism  is  visible  among  many  ancient  peoples;  and  the 
worship  of  a  god  who  is  believed  to  be  more  powerful  than 
other  gods  is  frequently  found  in  antiquity.  Such  a  religion 
has  no  particular  advantage  over  polytheism,  unless  it  be 
saturated  with  an  exclusive  ethical  spirit  such  as  the  cult  of 
Yahweh  at  length  acquired. 


CHAPTER  XV 
THE  GROUPING  OF  THE  GODS 

The  coalescence  of  Israelites  and  Amorites  brought  the  cults 
of  Yahweh  and  the  Baals  into  close  connection. — When  the  two 
races  united  in  the  Hebrew  nation,  the  gods  of  both  peoples 
continued  to  stand.  There  is  nowhere  any  hint  that  David 
commanded  the  Amorites  to  put  away  their  ancient  cults 
as  a  condition  of  entering  the  kingdom.  To  do  this  would 
have  stirred  up  race-prejudice  once  more,  since  religion  and 
politics  were  identified  in  ancient  society.  The  entire  policy 
of  David  shows  that  he  wanted  to  conciliate  the  Amorites; 
and  there  is  no  sign  of  any  struggle  against  the  local  Baal- 
worship  for  many  generations  after  the  establishment  of  the 
Davidic  monarchy.  We  do  not  know  whether  David  and 
Solomon  themselves  worshiped  the  native  Amorite  gods;1 
but  we  know  that  the  incorporation  of  the  Amorites  would 
have  been  impossible  if  they  had  not  become  worshipers  of 
the  national  deity;  and  we  find  cases  in  which  they  actually 
practiced  the  cult  of  Yahweh  (II  Sam.  21:1-9;  cf.  I  Kings 
3:4,  5).  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  Baals  were  local,  or  pro- 
vincial, gods;  and  the  founding  of  the  nation  did  not  bring 
up  the  subject  of  the  local  worship.  As  a  consequence,  the 
provincial  gods  dropped  into  the  background  until  they  were 
finally  thrust  into  notice  by  the  fierce  denunciations  of  the 
later  prophets. 

The  Hebrew  kingdom  brought  with  it  a  strong  impulse  to 
regard  Yahweh  as  a  god  of  civilization. — The  establishment  of 
the  monarchy  at  the  point  of  coalescence  between  Israelites 
and  Amorites  brought  with  it  a  powerful  tendency  to  forget 

1  Professor  Ira  M.  Price,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  suggests  that  David  may 
have  simply  ignored  the  local  Baals. 

133 


134  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

or  ignore  the  connection  between  Yahweh  and  the  older 
usages  of  the  desert  and  the  hills.  There  was  now  an  impulse 
to  connect  the  national  god  with  the  standpoint  of  civiliza- 
tion as  opposed  to  that  of  the  wilderness,  and  to  claim  the 
patronage  of  Yahweh  on  behalf  of  legal  usages  that  were 
strange  to  the  more  primitive  classes  in  Hebrew  society.  In 
other  words,  the  kingdom  had  a  propensity  to  draw  Yahweh 
aside  from  his  earlier  character  as  a  god  of  the  primitive,  brother- 
hood mishpat,  and  to  regard  him  as  a  divinity  having  the  same 
nature  as  the  local  Baals.  This  impulse  is  clearly  chargeable 
to  that  part  of  the  Hebrew  nation  where  Amorite  blood  was 
thickest.  The  tendency  to  "baalize"  the  national  god  came 
out  conspicuously  into  relief  among  the  ruling  classes  who 
stood  connected  with  the  old  Amorite  centers  of  population. 

But  Yahweh's  early  character,  as  a  god  of  brotherhood  "mish- 
pat,"  clung  to  him  persistently. — The  tendency  to  convert  the 
national  god  into  a  local  Baal  was  not  suffered  to  go  unchecked. 
For  the  old  idea  of  Yahweh  survived  in  vigor  among  certain 
classes  of  the  people.  The  nation,  indeed,  became  an  arena 
wherein  a  mighty  conflict  was  waged  around  this  issue: 
Is  Yahweh  a  god  who  approves  the  standpoint  of  oriental 
civilization,  with  its  practical  disregard  of  the  common 
man  ?  Or,  is  he  to  be  worshiped  as  a  god  who  sanctions  the 
older  and  higher  morality  of  the  nomadic  social  group,  with 
its  greater  esteem  for  human  rights? 

In  the  end,  the  tendency  to  "baalize"  Yahweh  was  defeated.— 
The  struggle  around  this  issue  occupies  the  foreground  of 
our  sociological  investigation  of  the  Bible.  The  great  conflict 
began,  as  many  struggles  do,  in  a  vague  and  confused  way. 
Men  could  not  immediately  think  themselves  into  absolute 
clearness  about  it.  They  had  to  go  through  stages  in  their 
discernment  of  the  logic  underlying  the  main  issue.  It  is  not 
the  design  of  this  chapter  to  put  on  exhibition  the  different 
periods  that  marked  the  controversy.  But  it  is  well  to 


THE  GROUPING  OF  THE  GODS         135 

emphasize  at  this  point  in  our  study  that  the  tendency  to 
baalize  the  Hebrew  religion  was  defeated  in  the  long  run. 
However  strong  the  forces  were  which  tended  to  convert 
Yahweh  into  a  god  of  "civilization,"  the  religious  develop- 
ment of  Israel  proves  that  these  forces  were  largely  counter- 
acted. 

The  distinction  between  Yahweh  and  the  local  Baals  was 
explicitly  asserted  by  the  prophet  Hosea,  in  the  eighth  century 
B.C.;  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  in  the  seventh  century;  and 
by  the  Deuteronomic  writers,  who  were  in  part  contemporary 
with  Jeremiah.  The  great  monument  of  the  Deuteronomic 
school  is,  of  course,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  in  which  the 
"other  gods"  chiefly  in  view  are  the  gods  of  the  former  inhabi- 
tants of  Canaan.  But  the  Deuteronomists  also  accomplished 
work  of  large  importance  in  compiling  and  editing  the  books  of 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  which  emphasize  the  distinction 
between  Yahweh  and  the  local  Baals. 

There  were  several  ways  in  which  the  distinction  between 
Yahweh  and  the  Baals  was  preserved. — A  number  of  circum- 
stances operated  to  maintain  the  qualitative  difference  between 
the  cults  inherited  by  the  nation  from  its  double  ancestry, 
Israelite  and  Amorite. 

i.  The  social  diversity  of  the  Hebrews. — It  is  a  fact  of  large 
and  vital  importance  that  the  nation  was  not  ironed  out  into 
absolute  social  and  religious  uniformity.  The  mixture  of 
Israel  with  the  Amorites  was  mostly  in  Ephraim,  the  north* 
It  was  here  that  most  of  the  old  Amorite  cities  lay  (cf.  chap,  xi, 
Table  II).  Accordingly,  it  was  in  Northern  Israel,  that  Baal- 
worship  flourished  more  than  elsewhere.2 

But  on  the  contrary,  the  people  with  whom  the  Israelites 
mixed  in  the  highlands  of  Judah  were  mostly  Arabian  clans, 
whose  habits  and  point  of  view  agreed  more  closely  with  the 

1  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land  (London,  1904),  p.  316. 
'McCurdy,  art.  "Baal."  Jewish  Encyc. 


136  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

early  mishpat  of  Yahweh.  "The  shepherd's  occupation," 
writes  Professor  Addis,  "was  ....  especially  prominent  in 
Judah,  where  there  is  much  less  arable  land  than  in  the  central 
districts  of  Palestine."1  The  influence  of  Judah  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  more  primitive  life  and  thought  was  reinforced  by 
that  of  Gilead,  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  Gilead  was  a  hill- 
country,  "a  place  for  cattle"  (Num.  32:1).  Here  the  goats 
lay  along  the  mountain  side;  here  people  and  flock  fed  in  the 
ancient  days  (Song  of  Sol.  4:1;  Mic.  7:14).  Gilead  was 
ever  one  of  the  backward,  outlying  sections  of  Israel,  touched 
but  little  by  Amorite  civilization. 

The  Israelites  of  the  frontier,  in  Judah  and  beyond  the  Jordan  in 
Gilead,  evidently  retained  not  a  little  of  the  ancient  nomad  habits, 
and  in  part  were  closely  allied  with  other  tribes  of  the  wilderness.  Thus 
we  find  from  time  to  time  expressions  of  that  characteristic  distaste  for 
the  ease  and  luxuries  of  settled  life  which  belongs  to  the  genuine  Bedouin. 
The  Nazirite  vow  against  drinking  wine  and  the  laws  of  the  Rechabites 
are  cases  in  point.  And  the  Rechabites,  like  the  Nazirites,  were  on  the 
side  of  the  old  Jehovah  [Yahweh]  worship,  and  against  the  Canaanite 
Baal.3 

As  soon  as  we  fix  firmly  in  mind  the  primitive  disposition 
of  Judah  and  Gilead,  as  contrasted  with  the  more  "civilized" 
character  of  Ephraim,  we  shall  be  prepared  to  grasp  the  sig- 
nificance of  two  of  the  earliest  and  most  effective  Israelite 
prophets.  Elijah,  of  Gilead,  left  his  home,  and  passed  over 
into  the  more  Amorite  Ephraim  in  order  to  protest  against 
the  evils  of  his  time  (I  Kings  17:1  ff.).  In  the  same  way, 
Amos  left  his  home  in  the  wilderness  of  southern  Judah,  and 
went  up  into  Ephraim  to  preach  on  behalf  of  the  ancient 
mishpat  of  Yahweh  (Amos  7:10-15).  These  flaming  prophets 
were  semi-nomads  themselves;  and  they  were  the  spokesmen 
of  whole  classes  of  shepherds  and  cattle-raisers  that  lived  in  the 

1  Addis,  Hebrew  Religion  (London,  1906),  p.  82.     Cf.  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit. 
3  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Prophets  of  Israel  (London,  1897),  pp.  381,  382.     Cf. 
Renan,  History  of  Israel  (Boston),  Vol.  II,  p.  227. 


YAHW£H-\VORSHIP 


JUDAH 

PRiniTIVE  CLANS 

YAHWEH-WOR5HIP 


BAAL-PEOR 
OF  MOAB 


SCHEME  OF  HEBREW  EVOLUTION 

This  diagram  should  be  frequently  consulted.  The  Israelite  clans  located  them- 
selves in  the  hills  of  Judah,  Ephraim,  and  Gilead.  The  fusion  with  the  Amorites  was 
mostly  in  Ephraim.  The  "' mishpat  struggle"  began  with  blind  revolts  against  the 
government;  proceeded  thence  to  expulsion  of  the  "border-Baals";  and  at  length 
took  its  characteristic,  biblical  form  by  raising  the  question  of  the  local,  or  native, 
Baals  inherited  from  the  Amorite  side  of  the  nation's  ancestry. 


THE  GROUPING  OF  THE  GODS         137 

highlands  of  Judah  and  Gilead  in  close  touch  with  desert 
life  and  ways  of  thought.1 

2.  The  historical  memories  of  the  Judges  period  were  another 
circumstance  that  preserved  the  distinction  between  Yahweh 
and  the  local  Baals.     This  distinction  was  implied  in  the  vivid 
stories  that  came  down  across  the  centuries  from  the  early 
period  of  the  settlement,  enshrined  in  the  recollections  of  the 
people.    These   ancient   folk-tales   from   the   pre-monarchic 
period  were  taken  up  eagerly  by  the  Deuteronomic  school, 
which   combined   them  into  a  treatise  later  known  as  the 
"Book  of  Judges."     In  this  work,  the  campaign  against  the 
local  Baal- worship  is  treated  with  great  energy  and  effect. 

3.  The  military  victories  of  David  supplied  another  tendency 
in  the  direction  of  emphasizing  the  contrast  between  Yahweh 
and  the  Amorite  gods.    The  martial  progress  of  the  Hebrew 
nation   lifted    Yahweh    high    above    the    local    Baals.    The 
Amorite  Araunah,  of  Jerusalem,  is  represented  as  speaking  to 
David  about  "Yahweh  thy  god"  (II  Sam.  24:23);  and  it  was 
impossible  that  Araunah  and  his  Amorite  neighbors  could 
have  imagined  that  the  strong  god  whose  tent  had  been  lately 
set  up  on  the  hill  of  Zion  was  in  any  sense  a  deity  whom  their 
own  forefathers  had  venerated  as  a  local  Baal.    When  the 

1  It  is  a  well-established  law  that  every  stage  in  social  development  finds  its 
point  of  departure  in  some  diversity,  or  heterogeneity,  that  existed  in  the  preceding 
stage  of  evolution.  This  is  treated  in  the  writer's  Examination  of  Society  (1903). 
See  sec.  78  of  that  book  with  reference  to  the  lack  of  uniformity  among  the  Hebrews. 
As  we  shall  see  later,  the  social  diversity  of  the  nation  explains  the  peculiar  distribu- 
tion of  emphasis  upon  local  Baalism  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  final  reaction  against 
it  in  the  early  period  is  placed  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  before  the  Israelites  and 
Amorites  had  coalesced  (I  Sam.  7:4).  The  local  Baals  are  not  again  mentioned  for 
many  centuries  (I  Kings  18:18;  21:26;  II  Kings  21:2,  3).  Elijah  apparently  strug- 
gled only  against  foreign  Baalism.  The  eighth-century  southern  school  of  prophecy 
(consisting  of  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah)  had  nothing  explicit  to  say  about  Baalism. 
The  first  prophet  of  Israel  to  raise  the  issue  as  a  local  matter  was  Hosea,  who  lived 
amid  the  Baal-worship  of  the  north.  But  the  final  characteristic  development  of  the 
Baal  issue  took  place  in  the  south,  under  the  leadership  of  Jeremiah  and  the  Deuterono- 
mists,  long  after  the  time  of  Hosea.  This  interesting  phase  of  the  process  will  be 
treated  in  the  chapters  that  follow. 


138  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Amorites  of  Gibeon  sacrificed  the  grandsons  of  Saul  "before 
Yahweh,"  they  could  hardly  have  identified  the  national  god 
with  the  provincial  Baals  (II  Sam.  21:1-9). 

No  doubt,  many  persons  in  David's  time  worshiped  Yah- 
weh in  the  same  character  as  the  local  Baals;  and  later  on, 
many  people  may  have  gone  farther,  and  regarded  the  provin- 
cial gods  as  local  forms  of  Yahweh,  the  great  national  Baal. 
Yet  there  were  clear-sighted  minds  among  the  Hebrews, 
down  to  the  very  end  of  the  national  history,  such  as  Hosea, 
Jeremiah,  and  the  Deuteronomic  school.  The  military  exploits 
of  David,  by  lifting  Yahweh  high  above  the  local  Baals,  were 
among  the  subtle  and  pervasive  circumstances  that  helped  the 
later  prophets  to  keep  alive  the  distinction  between  the  gods. 

Hosea  tells  the  people  to  cease  calling  Yahweh  a  Baal  (Hos. 
2:16);  and  Jeremiah  declares  that  the  people  have  forgotten 
Yahweh's  "name"  by  reason  of  Baal  (Jer.  23:27).  In  the 
end,  the  tendency  to  confuse  Yahweh  and  the  Baals,  both  as 
to  "personality"  and  as  to  "character,"  was  overcome  by  the 
tendency  to  distinguish  between  the  gods.1 

Under  the  Hebrew  kings,  the  "established  religion"  took  the 
form  of  a  pantheon,  with  Yahweh  as  the  leading  divinity. — "It  is 
nothing  surprising,"  writes  Professor  H.  P.  Smith,  "to  find  the 
tutelary  deities  of  all  Solomon's  subjects  united  in  a  pantheon." 
The  reason  for  this  is,  that  "the  religion  of  Yahweh  was  not  at 
this  period  sufficiently  exclusive  to  protest  against  it."2 

The  actual  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  before  the  Exile,  was 
clearly  a  system  of  polytheism,  in  which  many  divinities  were 
included,  and  wherein  Yahweh,  the  national  god,  was  the 

1  Although  a  few  Baal  names  date  from  the  time  of  David,  which  point  to  the 
application  of  this  common  term  to  Yahweh,  there  are  far  more  names  from  this  period 
which  include  the  proper  name  of  the  national  god.  Moreover,  these  names  are  not 
borne  by  common  folk,  but  by  persons  of  distinction  (II  Sam.  3:4;  8:16;  12:25; 
13:3;  20:23;  20:24;  I  Kings  1:5;  4:2;  4:3;  11:29). 

2H.  P.  Smith,  Old  Testament  History  (New  York,  1903),  p.  169  (italics  ours). 
"As  empires  brought  different  tribes  or  cities  into  political  unity,  pantheons  were 
formed." — George  A.  Barton,  op.  cit.  Kuenen  says  that  it  was  quite  natural  that  the 
other  gods  should  be  served  in  the  high  places  beside  Yahweh  (The  Religion  of  Israel 
London],  Vol.  I,  p.  351). 


THE  GROUPING  OF  THE  GODS         139 

leading  figure.  Among  "other  gods"  the  local  Baals  became 
the  most  important,  because  the  religion  of  Israel  took  on  its 
world-renowned  character  of  absolute  exclusiveness  through  the 
fight  against  the  Amorite  gods. 

When  treated  in  this  way,  Bible-study  acquires  a  new 
interest  for  the  modern  mind.  We  behold  the  Hebrew  king- 
dom born  at  the  point  of  coalescence  between  Amorite  civiliza- 
tion and  Israelite  nomadism.  Each  race  contributes  its  own 
gods  and  its  own  social  point  of  view  to  the  composite  nation. 
But  there  is  a  fundamental  difference  between  the  standpoints 
of  civilization  and  nomadism.  This  conflict  slowly  takes  form 
within  the  nation.  It  is  the  later  prophets  who  realize  the 
facts  of  the  problem  in  a  broad  way;  and  only  after  a  long 
and  agonizing  struggle  is  the  difference  between  social  usages 
expressed  in  the  form  of  a  rivalry  within  the  "established" 
Hebrew  religion  itself.  Just  here  lay  the  heart-shattering 
feature  of  the  problem.  The  standpoints  of  nomadism  and 
civilization  were  identified  respectively  with  Yahweh  and  the 
Baals  at  the  start;  and  the  logic  of  history  pursued  the  Hebrew 
mind  like  invisible  fate  until  the  conflict  at  last  came  to  an 
issue  around  the  hostility  between  Yahwism  and  Baalism.1 

1  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  term  boat  indicated  ownership,  and  that  it 
implied  the  social  system  of  slavery.  The  Amorite  Baals  represented  a  social  system 
in  which  freemen  could  legally  be  reduced  to  bondage.  Hence,  in  the  eyes  of 
prophets  such  as  Jeremiah,  this  term  should  not  be  applied  to  Yahweh,  since  it  did 
not  represent  his  attitude  toward  the  clansmen  of  Israel  (cf.  pp.  160-61). 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  INTERACTION  OF  TENDENCIES 

The  development  of  Bible  religion  took  place  through  the 
pressure  of  diverse  "forces." — The  religion  of  the  Bible  is  not 
the  outcome  of  one  special  thread  of  influence,  but  the  product 
of  many  tendencies  and  circumstances  working  together. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  part  of  our  study,  we  showed  that 
the  Yahweh  cult  got  its  peculiar  and  exclusive  character  through 
a  long  struggle  (chap.  ix).  The  following  chapter  showed 
that  this  conflict  involved  the  shock  of  opposing  standpoints 
represented  by  nomadism  and  civilization  (chap.  x).  We 
then  took  up  the  Judges  period,  showing  that  the  Yahweh- 
Baal  struggle  was  at  first  an  incident  of  the  contact  of  alien 
social  groups,  Yahweh  retaining  his  character  as  a  god  of  the 
primitive,  brotherhood  mishpat  (chap.  xi).  In  the  ensuing 
chapter,  we  passed  on  to  consider  Saul's  kingdom  in  the 
highlands,  which  marked  the  beginning  of  the  national  move- 
ment. We  saw  that  the  Israelites  continued  apart  from  the 
Amorites  in  this  period,  without  taking  up  the  standpoint  of 
civilization;  that  Yahweh  became  fully  acclimatized  as  a  god 
of  the  highlands,  but  that  he  still  represented  the  ancient 
clan  usages  (chap.  xii).  We  then  took  up  the  coalescence  of 
Israelites  and  Amorites  in  the  military  Hebrew  monarchy 
under  the  house  of  David  (chap.  xiii).  Our  next  item  for 
study  was  the  effect  of  the  new  national  development  upon  the 
prestige  of  Yahweh  (chap.  xiv).  Then  followed  inquiry  into 
the  relations  borne  toward  each  other  by  the  cults  inherited 
from  the  double  ancestry  of  the  Hebrews  (chap.  xv).  We 
saw  that  the  nation  was  convulsed  by  a  struggle  wherein 
the  tendency  to  "identify"  the  national  god  with  the  local 
gods  was  defeated  by  the  principle  of  distinction  between 
Yahweh  and  the  Baals.  To  this  great  conflict  we  now  turn. 

140 


CHAPTER  XVII 
THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE 

The  Hebrew  nation  was  presently  convulsed  by  an  internal 
struggle. — The  rise  of  the  Hebrew  state  was  complicated  by 
another  social  movement  of  tremendous  importance.  Within 
fifty  years  from  the  time  when  the  Amorites  of  Beth-shan 
beheld  the  dead  body  of  King  Saul  hanging  on  their  outer 
fortifications;  within  fifty  years  from  the  time  when  the 
Amorites  of  Gibeon  were  appeased  by  the  sacrifice  of  Saul's 
grandsons;  within  fifty  years  from  the  time  when  David 
began  to  contract  marriages  with  the  Amorites  of  Jerusalem; 
before  the  two  races  had  fused  into  one;  and  while  David 
still  occupied  the  Hebrew  throne — the  new  nation  was  con- 
vulsed by  a  tremendous  internal  struggle.  The  government 
itself  became  an  object  of  contention  between  rival  parties. 
The  people  were  in  revolt  against  the  crown. 

According  to  the  advice  attributed  to  Samuel,  the  people 
would  not  be  satisfied  with  the  mishpat  of  the  monarchy.  The 
national  soil  would  concentrate  in  the  grasp  of  the  nobility; 
and  the  masses  would  be  forced  into  debt  and  slavery  (I  Sam. 
8:10-17;  cf.  chap,  x,  supra,  p.  92).  A  hint  along  the  line  of 
Samuel's  address  is  found  in  the  famous  notice  about  the  four 
hundred  men  who  gathered  about  David  at  the  cave  of  Adullam 
in  his  outlaw  days — "  everyone  that  was  in  distress,  and  every- 
one that  was  in  debt,  and  everyone  that  was  discontented" 
(I  Sam.  22:2).  Many  slaves  were  breaking  away  from  their 
masters  at  this  time  (I  Sam.  25:10).  The  introduction  to  the 
narratives  about  the  great  revolt  led  by  Ahitophel  and  Absalom 
clearly  implies  that  the  courts  are  not  working  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  people  (II  Sam.  15:1-6).  For  the  people  do  not 
find  the  right  sort  of  mishpat  (justice,  or  judgment).1  The 

1  The  word  mishpat  occurs  here  three  times:  vss.  2,  4,  and  6. 

141 


142  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

force  that  swung  the  balance  in  favor  of  David  in  the  struggle 
with  the  peasantry  was  no  doubt  the  professional,  hired 
soldiery  under  command  of  Benaiah  (II  Sam.  15:18;  20:23). 
But  the  military  triumph  of  David  could  not  solve  the 
problem  before  the  nation;  and  as  his  reign  drew  to  a  close, 
the  struggle  began  afresh  in  the  contest  over  the  succession  to 
the  crown.  Two  candidates  for  the  throne  appeared.  One  of 
these  was  Adonijah,  supported  by  the  highland  peasantry;  by 
Joab,  the  leader  of  the  peasant  militia;  and  by  the  priest 
Abiathar,  of  the  old  Ephraimite  village  of  Nob  (I  Kings  i :  5- 
14;  2 : 13-15).  The  other  candidate,  Solomon,  had  the  support 
of  Benaiah,  the  commander  of  the  standing  army  at  the  capi- 
tal; of  Zadok,  the  priest  of  Jerusalem;  of  Nathan,  the  prophet 
of  Jerusalem;  and,  no  doubt,  of  the  city  class  in  general 
(I  Kings  i  :8,  11-14,  44~46).  The  victory  of  Solomon  over  the 
peasantry  was  as  clearly  due  to  the  support  of  the  standing 
army  as  was  the  earlier  triumph  of  David  over  the  same 
elements  of  the  population.1 

In  harmony  with  the  unpopular  origin  of  his  govern- 
ment, Solomon  oppressed  the  peasantry  by  forced  labor. 
This,  of  course,  intensified  the  national  malice  against  the 
house  of  David.  The  taskwork  of  all  that  part  of  the  nation 
lying  north  of  Jerusalem  (the  house  of  Joseph)  was  in  charge 
of  an  official  by  the  name  of  Jeroboam.  This  man,  moved 
by  sympathy  and  ambition,  "lifted  up  his  hand  against  the 
king"  (I  Kings  11:26  f.).  In  this  action,  he  had  the  support 
of  Ahijah,  the  prophet,  who  lived  in  the  Josephite  village  of 

1  "The  matter  was  decided  by  the  strong  men  of  David." — Renan,  Studies  in 
Religious  History  (London,  1893)  p.  70.  "The  body-guard  was  loyal  to  the  old  king; 
and  it  held  the  balance  of  power." — H.  P.  Smith,  Old  Testament  History  (New  York, 
Z9°3)»  P-  I53-  Large  armies  have  not  usually  been  necessary  to  hold  down  the 
unorganized  peasants  and  nomads  of  the  Semitic  world.  Doughty,  who  spent  two 
years  in  Arabia,  states  that  Ibn  Rashid  maintained  his  power  with  four  or  five  hundred 
professional  soldiers  (Arabia  Deserta  [Cambridge,  1888],  Vol.  I,  p.  161,  and  Vol.  II, 
p.  23).  Mohammed  won  the  battle  of  Bedr  with  only  three  hundred  trained  men 
against  three  times  that  number.  Cf.  Miiller,  Der  Islam  (Berlin,  1885),  Vol.  I,  p.  no. 


BEGINNING  OF  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE          143 

Shiloh.  Although  Solomon  was  not  unseated,  the  growth  of 
insurgency,  as  we  may  now  call  it,  continued  throughout  his 
reign ;  and  by  the  time  of  his  death,  the  majority  of  the  people 
were  prepared  to  take  radical  action.  The  son  and  successor 
of  Solomon  declares:  "My  father  made  your  yoke  heavy,  but 
I  will  add  to  your  yoke.  My  father  chastised  you  with  whips, 
but  I  will  chastise  you  with  scorpions  "  (I  Kings  12:14).  After 
this,  the  vast  bulk  of  the  nation  withdrew  from  the  house  of 
David,  setting  up  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim,  or  Israel.1 

The  division  was  not  a  turning-point  in  the  social  history; 
it  was  a  minor  incident  in  the  national  struggle.  In  the 
revolt  against  the  house  of  David,  the  nation  merely  shook  off 
a  small  county  on  the  southern  border.  The  vast  mass  of 
the  people  north  of  Jerusalem  set  up  a  new  government  under 
the  old  name  of  Israel.  It  was  here,  indeed,  that  the  national 
movement  had  begun.  Here  was  the  home  of  Saul,  the 
first  king,  and  of  Samuel,  the  last  of  the  judges.  The  tiny 
principality  on  the  south  was  of  small  political  importance. 
Detached  and  isolated  amid  the  rocky  hills,  it  dropped  almost 
below  the  historical  horizon. 

But  the  issue  between  parties  was  not  settled  by  the  separa- 
tion of  Israel  from  Judah.  The  same  struggle  that  had  con- 
vulsed the  united  kingdom  soon  broke  out  afresh  with  growing 
intensity.  For  many  generations,  the  center  of  interest  in  the 
Hebrew  struggle  was  in  Israel  and  not  in  Judah.  The  notices 
regarding  social  conditions  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  during  its 
earlier  period  are  unsatisfactory;  but  those  that  we  have  are 
very  suggestive  when  taken  in  connection  with  Bible  evidence 
as  a  whole.  One  royal  house  after  another  was  raised  up,  and 
then  cast  violently  down.  So  perished  the  dynasties  of  Jero- 
boam and  Baasha  (I  Kings,  chaps.  14,  15,  16).  The  rise  of 

1  It  is  probable  that  one  element  in  the  popular  discontent  with  Solomon  lay  in 
the  demonetization  of  silver  caused  by  the  heavy  influx  of  gold  in  connection  with 
the  growth  of  commerce  in  this  reign.  The  old  silver  money  in  the  hands  of  the 
common  people  dropped  greatly  in  value  (I  Kings  10:10,  n,  14-27). 


144  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

the  next  royal  house  was  also  an  incident  in  the  great  struggle 
that  had  convulsed  the  nation  since  the  days  of  David.  For 
we  read  that  "half  of  the  people  followed  Tibni  ben  Ginath, 
to  make  him  king,  and  half  followed  Omri.  But  the  people 
that  followed  Omri  prevailed  against  the  people  that  followed 
Tibni  ben  Ginath.  So  Tibni  died,  and  Omri  reigned  "  (I  Kings 
16:21,22).  The  victory  of  the  successful  candidate  was  bound 
up  with  the  fact  that  he,  like  Solomon  before  him,  had  the 
support  of  the  regular  army,  having  been  chosen  king  in  the 
camp  some  time  before  the  contest  with  his  rival.  This 
monarch  was  followed  by  his  son  Ahab,  in  whose  reign  the  first 
great  prophet  of  the  Hebrews  came  forward  with  an  awful 
curse  against  the  king  for  his  wickedness  in  connection  with 
the  seizure  of  a  peasant's  land.  This  famous  case,  like  a  flash 
of  lightning,  illuminates  the  process  of  land  concentration 
which  went  forward  among  the  Hebrews  as  it  did  among  all 
the  nations  and  empires  of  antiquity  (I  Kings,  chap.  2i).x 
Another  evidence  of  the  social  problem  in  the  same  period  is 
found  in  the  indebtedness  of  a  prophet  and  the  bondage  of 
his  children  (II  Kings  4:1).  The  situation  agrees  with  what 
we  read  of  Assyria  in  the  days  of  Sargon  II. 

The  policy  of  Sargon  ....  involved  the  subordination  of  the  Assyrian 
peasantry  to  the  commercial  and  industrial  interests  of  the  state  or 
to  the  possessors  of  great  landed  estates.  The  burdens  of  taxes  fell 
upon  the  farmers  even  more  heavily.  They  dwindled  away,  became 

serfs  on  the  estates,  or  slaves  in  the  manufactories Thus  the 

state  as  organized  by  Sargon  became  more  and  more  an  artificial  struc- 

1  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  Naboth  case  (I  Kings,  chap.  21),  the  horror  in  the 
first  instance  does  not  lie  in  the  murder  of  Naboth,  but  in  the  king's  proposal  to  treat 
the  peasant's  land  as  an  item  of  sale  and  exchange  (vs.  2).  It  is  this  proposal,  involv- 
ing the  alienation  of  his  patrimonial  soil,  that  arouses  Naboth  himself.  Then  it  is 
to  be  further  observed  that  the  conspiracy  of  Jezebel  against  Naboth  could  not  be 
carried  out  as  a  bare  piece  of  robbery.  It  had  to  be  given  a  legal  form  through  the 
court  of  "elders  and  nobles"  to  which  Naboth  was  answerable  (vs.  8).  The  murder, 
in  fact,  was  a  mere  incident  in  the  case.  Naboth's  crime,  in  the  eyes  of  Jezebel,  con- 
sisted in  lese  majesie.  He  had  spurned  what  the  official  classes  viewed  as  a  perfectly 
just  and  reasonable  demand  on  the  part  of  the  king. 


BEGINNING  OF  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE          145 

ture,  of  splendid  proportions,  indeed,  but  the  foundations  of  which 

were    altogether   insufficient Assyria's    sudden    collapse    is    so 

startling  and  unexpected  as  properly  to  cause  surprise  and  demand 

investigation The  exhausting  campaigns,  the  draft  upon  the 

population,  the  neglect  of  agricultural  development,  which  is  the  economic 
basis  of  a  nation's  existence  and  for  which  industry  or  commerce  cannot 
compensate,  ....  the  supremacy  of  great  landowners,  and  the  corre- 
sponding disappearance  of  free  peasants,  the  employment  of  mercena- 
ries and  all  that  follows  in  its  train — these  things,  inseparable  from 
a  military  regime,  undermined  Assyria's  vitality  and  grew  more  and 
more  dangerous  as  the  state  enlarged.1 

Illustrations  to  the  same  effect  are  also  found  in  Babylonia, 
Egypt,  Greece,  Rome,  and  indeed  throughout  all  the  ancient 
world.  So  far  as  the  purely  economic,  or  material,  facts  are 
concerned,  the  Hebrew  people  were  not  in  any  way  exceptional. 

The  "mishpat"  struggle  turned  around  the  question,  What 
are  good  law  and  morals? — The  coalescence  of  Israelites  and 
Amorites  in  one  social  mass  produced  a  great  confusion  and 
clashing  of  legal  and  moral  usages  and  ideas.  The  nation  as 
a  whole  was  not  able  to  agree  on  what  constituted  "good" 
law  and  "good"  morals.  There  was  a  fundamental  conflict 
of  standpoints.  There  was  a  gigantic,  widespread,  long- 
continued  misunderstanding,  in  which  neither  party  was 
infallible,  and  in  which  right  and  wrong  were  on  both  sides. 
The  official,  executive  class,  headed  by  the  king,  was  located 
in  the  walled  cities,  in  close  contact  with  the  Amorite  point  of 
view.  The  practical  result  was  an  irresistible  tendency  to  put 
the  machinery  of  the  national  government  on  the  side  of  those 
usages  and  ideas  that  came  from  the  Amorite  ancestry  of  the 
nation.  The  setting-up  of  the  monarchy  brought  with  it  the 
forcible  extension  of  Amorite  mishpat,  or  legal  usage,  over  the 
backward  clans  of  the  hill-country.  The  highlanders,  under 
the  lead  of  such  men  as  Elijah,  Elisha,  Amos,  Jehonadab  ben 

1  Goodspeed,  History  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  (New  York,  1906),  pp. 
263,  326,  327,  328. 


i46  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Rechab,  and  others,  reacted  against  this  from  the  standpoint 
of  their  ancient,  clan  mishpat.  As  a  consequence,  the  situation 
involved  what  may  be  figured  as  a  head-on  collision  between 
moral  codes.  The  monarchical  government  enlisted  the 
organized  force  of  the  kingdom  on  the  side  of  the  usages  of 
settled  civilization,  putting  the  judicial  and  military  and  police 
powers  behind  the  extension  of  Amorite  law  throughout  the 
entire  land.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  outcome  was  fore- 
seen by  Samuel  substantially  as  we  find  it  in  the  book  bearing 
his  name.  His  warning  was,  that  the  king  would  represent  a 
mishpat}  or  legal  system,  in  which  the  peasantry  would  be 
heavily  taxed  and  reduced  to  slavery,  and  in  which  their 
lands  would  fall  into  the  possession  of  a  small  wealthy  class 
of  nobles.  We  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  revolted  against  the  house  of  David;  nor  are  we 
surprised  to  see  that  the  people  of  the  Northern  Kingdom 
destroyed  one  royal  dynasty  after  another.  What  is  yet  more 
to  the  point,  we  are  entirely  prepared  to  find  that  these 
revolutions  against  the  kings  were  supported  by  the  prophets 
of  Yahweh,  such  as  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  Jehu  ben  Hanani, 
Elijah,  and  Elisha  (I  Kings,  chaps,  n,  14-21;  II  Kings, 
chap.  9). 

Having  considered  the  social  struggle  from  the  times  of 
David  up  into  the  ninth  century  B.C.  (900-800),  we  shall  now 
investigate  the  struggle  as  it  is  reflected  in  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  of  later  centuries — Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  Isaiah,  and 
others. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
THE  PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE 

The  prophets  were  chiefly  interested  not  in  the  future,  but  in 
the  problems  of  their  own  times. — As  we  turn  from  the  books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings  to  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  we  find  the 
historical  development  moving  onward  in  the  same  general 
terms  without  a  break;  and  the  details  of  the  situation  come 
out  before  us  with  an  intimacy  that  we  find  nowhere  else  in 
the  Bible. 

It  is  just  at  this  point  that  one  who  is  turning  away  from 
the  old  view  of  the  Bible  begins  to  get  a  strong  sense  of 
the  historical  unfolding  of  Israel's  experience.  The  literary 
prophets,  from  Amos  onward,  have  been  largely  ignored  by 
the  older  school  of  biblical  interpretation.  They  have  been 
treated  in  a  mechanical  way,  as  minor  incidents,  not  vitally 
related  to  the  Bible  history.  As  a  consequence,  the  prophets 
have  not  figured  much  in  the  thought  of  Christian  people. 
They  have  been  treated  as  men  who  were  chiefly  interested 
in  the  future.  It  has  been  supposed  that  "prophecy"  was  the 
equivalent  of  "prediction."  It  has  been  taken  for  granted 
that  the  prophets  were  mostly  talking  about  "things  to  come," 
and  that  their  main  value  and  significance  lay  in  foretelling 
the  birth  and  life  of  Jesus.  But  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word  "prophet,"  as  well  as  of  the  Hebrew  term  nabi,  does  not 
relate  to  prediction,  but  simply  to  preaching.  If,  instead  of 
saying,  the  "Book  of  the  Prophet  Amos,"  we  should  say,  the 
"Book  of  the  Preacher  Amos,"  we  should  convey  a  more  accu- 
rate impression  of  the  facts.  For  the  prophets  were  preachers, 
before  everything  else;  and  their  attention  was  directed 
chiefly  upon  the  conditions  and  problems  of  their  own  age. 
Beginning  in  the  time  treated  by  the  fourteenth  chapter  of 

147 


148  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

II  Kings,  the  writings  of  the  prophets  furnish  a  commentary 
on  the  mishpat  struggle  going  on  around  them.  By  studying 
the  prophetic  books  in  relation  to  corresponding  passages  in 
Kings,  we  are  able  to  go  forward  in  our  investigation.1 

The  literary  prophets  were  intensely  preoccupied  with  the 
"mishpat"  struggle. — It  should  be  emphasized  at  the  outset  that 
the  problem  of  mishpat  stood  at  the  very  center  of  the  prophetic 
field  of  vision.  The  treatment  of  this  great  biblical  term  in  mod- 
ern translations  cannot  do  justice  to  the  meaning  with  which  it 
is  charged  in  the  Hebrew.  Beginning  with  Amos,  in  the  eighth 
century  B.C.,  we  find  the  classic  exhortation,  "Let  mishpat 
roll  down  like  waters,  and  righteousness  like  an  ever-flowing 
stream ' '  (Amos  5:24).  Advancing  through  the  prophetic  books 
that  lie  along  the  years,  we  find  a  steady  and  unwavering  stress 
upon  the  same,  fundamental  theme,  until  at  last  the  motive 
clothes  itself  in  the  exalted  visions  of  the  post-exilic  Isaiah. 

Behold  my  Servant,  whom  I  sustain — my  Chosen,  in  whom  my  soul 
delighteth.  I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him.  He  shall  bring  forth  mishpat 

[justice]  to  the  nations A  cracked  reed  he  shall  not  break,  and 

the  dimly  burning  wick  he  shall  not  extinguish.  He  shall  faithfully  bring 
forth  mishpat.  He  shall  not  fail  nor  be  discouraged  till  he  have  set 
mishpat  in  the  earth;  and  the  isles  shall  wait  for  his  law  (Isa.  42:1-4).* 

1  Those  who  have  not  previously  approached  the  Bible  from  this  standpoint  will 
find  the  following  procedure  to  be  very  helpful:  On  the  margin  of  II  Kings,  14: 16, 
write,  "  Time  of  the  prophet  Amos.  From  this  point  onward,  the  books  of  the  literary 
prophets  give  an  intimate  mew  of  the  situation."  Opposite  II  Kings  14:23,  write, 
"See  Amos  1:1;  Eos.  1:1.  Compare  king-names.  This  is  Jeroboam  II."  Opposite 
II  Kings  15:1,  write,  "See  Amos  1:1."  Opposite  vs.  13,  write,  "See  Amos  1:1;  Hos. 
1:1;  Mic.  1:1;  Isa.  1:1."  Opposite  vs.  30,  write  as  opposite  vs.  13.  Opposite  II 
Kings  16: 20,  write,  "See  Mic.  1:1;  Hos.  1:1;  Isa.  1:1."  Opposite  II  Kings  18:  i,  write, 
"See  Hos.  1:1;  Mic.  1:1;  Isa.  1:1."  Opposite  II  Kings  22:1,  write  "See  Jer.  1:2; 
Zeph  .1:1."  Opposite  IIKings22:8,  write,  "An  early  edition  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. ' ' 
Opposite  II  Kings  23:34,  and  24: 18,  write,  "See  Jer.  1:3."  At  the  end  of  the  Second 
Book  of  Kings,  write,  "  Ezekiel  prophesied  in  Babylonia  during  the  Exile.  The  Book  of 
Isaiah,  beginning  with  chap.  40,  is  exilic  and  post-exilic." 

*  To  translate  the  term  mishpat  in  this  passage  merely  as  "religion"  is  to  obscure 
the  fundamental  meaning.  The  word  is  here  distinctly  related  to  consideration  for 
the  poor,  who  are  symbolized  by  the  reed  just  ready  to  break,  and  the  light  on  the  point 
of  extinction.  As  Whitehouse  observes,  the  word  is  here  used  "to  express  the  entirety 
of '  judgments' or  customs  (usages)  of  Yahweh's  religion."— Commentary  on  Isaiah 
(New  York,  Frowde),  Vol.  II,  p.  81. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE         149 

In  the  voices  of  these  mighty  prophets,  deep  answers  unto 
deep  across  the  tumults  of  history.  In  spite  of  differences  of 
expression,  the  same  problem  is  common  to  all  the  prophets. 
Amos  declares  that  mishpat  has  been  turned  to  "wormwood" 
(5:7;  6:12).  This  thought  reappears  in  Hosea,  where  mishpat 
is  spoken  of  as  springing  up  like  hemlock,  or  gall,  in  the 
furrows  of  the  field  (lo:^.).1  Amos  longs  to  see  mishpat 
established  "in  the  gate"  (5:15).  Hosea  says  that 
Ephraim,  or  Northern  Israel,  is  "crushed  in  mishpat"  (5:11.) 
Micah  says  that  he  is  full  of  power,  "by  the  spirit  of 
Yahweh  and  of  mishpat"  to  declare  to  Jacob  his  transgres- 
sion and  to  Israel  his  sin  (3:8).  What  does  Yahweh 
require,  but  to  do  mishpat,  and  to  love  kindness,  and  to  walk 
humbly  with  thy  god?  (Mic.  6:8.)  Learn  to  do  well;  seek 
mishpat,  says  Isaiah  (1:17).  Zion  shall  be  redeemed  with 
mishpat  (Isa.  1:27).  Woe  to  those  that  turn  aside  the  needy 
from  mishpat  (10:2).  Yahweh  is  a  god  of  mishpat 
30:18).  Princes  shall  rule  in  mishpat  (32:1).  Zephaniah, 
making  use  of  a  beautiful  figure,  says  that  every  morning 
Yahweh  brings  his  mishpat  to  light  (3:5).  Jeremiah  says 
that  in  all  Jerusalem  there  is  not  a  man  that  does  mishpat 
(5:1).  The  needy  do  not  get  mishpat  (Jer.  5:28).  No  longer 
may  Judah  remain  in  the  Holy  Land  unless  mishpat  is 
thoroughly  executed  between  man  and  man  (7:5-7).  Yahweh 
exercises  mercy  and  mishpat  in  the  land  (9:24).  Yahweh  calls 
for  the  doing  of  mishpat  (21:12;  22:3).  Ezekiel  gives  an 
elaborate  catalogue  of  the  various  lines  of  action  wherein 
mishpat  consists  (18:5-27;  see  33:14,  15).  Yahweh  will  feed 
the  people  in  mishpat  (Ezek.  34: 1 6).  The  princes  are  exhorted 
to  do  mishpat  (45:9-12). 

When  we  have  succeeded  in  grasping  the  fact  that  all  the 
prophets  are  absorbed  in  the  same  question,  we  have  taken 
one  more  step  toward  solution  of  the  Bible  problem  as  a  whole. 

1  It  comes  to  light  again  in  Deut.  29: 18. 


150  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  strong  emphasis  of  the  prophets  upon  this  question  is 
very  impressive,  and  calls  for  the  most  careful  study.  We 
are  even  yet  only  upon  the  threshold  of  our  theme. 

The  literary  prophets  all  identify  Yah  wen  with  the  "mishpat" 
inherited  from  the  Israelite  ancestry  of  the  Hebrew  nation. — 
The  passages  already  cited,  together  with  many  others  of 
like  force,  make  it  clear,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  prophets 
do  not  regard  themselves  as  innovators.  They  remember  and 
emphasize  the  connection  of  the  national  god  with  the  ancient 
ideas  and  practices  that  came  into  the  Hebrew  nation  from 
the  Israelite  side  of  its  ancestry.  Their  view  of  the  "mishpat 
of  Yahweh"  rests  back  on  the  social  experience  of  Israel  in 
the  old,  primitive,  nomadic  life  of  the  desert,  in  the  period  of 
the  Judges,  and  in  the  time  of  the  highland  kingdom  under 
Saul.  It  was,  indeed,  the  survival  of  these  ideas  and  practices 
among  the  more  backward  social  classes  of  the  nation  that  gave 
the  prophets  their  starting-point.  In  other  words,  the  prophetic 
thought  connected  itself  with  the  mishpat  that  prevailed 
among  the  Israelites  before  Israel  was  entangled  with  Amorite 
ideas  and  ways  of  life.  Perception  of  this  truth  takes  us  another 
step  into  the  problem.  We  have  seen  that  the  Hebrew  nation 
was  not  ironed  out  into  absolute  social  and  religious  uniformity; 
and  our  previous  results  and  conclusions  now  begin  to  drop 
into  place  in  the  structure  of  biblical  interpretation. 

At  first  the  prophets  contended  in  a  blind  way  against  perver- 
sion of  the  old  "mishpat." — The  earlier  prophets  were  not  in  a 
position  to  realize  the  nature  of  the  situation  in  which  they  found 
themselves;  and  they  could  not  understand  the  meaning  and 
power  of  the  forces  against  which  they  were  fighting.  The  later 
Old  Testament  writers — such  as  the  Deuteronomists,  Ezekiel, 
and  others — awoke  to  the  fact  that  the  essential  thing  in  the 
national  struggle  was  the  entanglement  of  Israel  with  Amorite 
usages  and  ideas;  and  the  modern  scholar  is  in  a  position  to  see 
this  even  more  clearly  and  certainly.  But  the  earlier  prophets 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE    151 

were  thrown  completely  off  their  guard  by  the  fact  that  the 
Amorite  race,  as  such,  was  no  longer  in  existence.  The  previous 
population  of  the  land  had  been  absorbed  into  the  mass  of 
the  nation;  and  the  name  of  Israel  had  overspread  the  entire 
community.  Everybody  in  the  time  of  the  prophets  believed 
themselves  in  good  faith  to  be  "Israelites";  and  the  Amorite 
side  of  the  nation's  ancestry  was  ignored.  To  Amos  and  his 
contemporaries,  the  Amorites  were  a  far-away  fact,  lying  on 
the  horizon  of  Hebrew  history. 

Yet  destroyed  I  the  Amorite  before  them,  whose  height  was  like  the 
height  of  the  cedars,  and  he  was  strong  as  the  oaks;  yet  I  destroyed  his 
fruit  from  above  and  his  roots  from  beneath.  Also  I  brought  you  up 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  led  you  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  to 
possess  the  land  of  the  Amorite  (Amos  2:9,  10). 

The  literary  prophets  and  their  forerunners  represented  (i) 
the  more  backward  social  class,  and  (2)  the  Israelite  ancestry 
of  the  nation. — The  prophet  Ahijah  came  from  the  Israelite 
village  of  Shiloh  (I  Kings  11:29).  Elijah  was  identified  with 
the  hill-country  of  Gilead,  east  of  the  Jordan  (I  Kings  17:1). 
Elisha's  home  was  the  village  of  Abelmeholah,  in  Ephraim 
(I  Kings  19:16,  19).  The  home  of  Amos  was  the  village  of 
Tekoa,  in  the  hills  of  southern  Judah  (Amos  1:1;  7:14). 
Micah's  residence  was  in  the  village  of  Moresheth,  hi  Judah 
(Mic.  1:1).  Jeremiah's  home  was  the  village  of  Anathoth, 
northeast  of  Jerusalem  (Jer.  i :  i ;  32 : 7-9). 

By  comparing  these  places  with  the  territory  conquered 
by  the  Israelite  clans  in  the  early  days,  it  is  apparent  that 
the  literary  prophets  and  their  forerunners  represented  the 
Israelite  side  of  the  nation's  ancestry,  and  not  the  Amorite 
line  of  its  descent.  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  they 
stood  for  the  more  backward  social  classes,  the  peasantry 
of  the  highlands.  The  homes  of  some  of  the  prophets  (for 
example,  Isaiah  and  Hosea)  are  not  known;  but  all  these 
prophets  are  in  fundamental  agreement;  and  the  controlling 


iS2  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

factor  in  their  message  is  the  standpoint  of  the  highland 
peasantry. 

The  literary  prophets  remained  in  an  attitude  of  opposition 
to  the  kings,  nobles,  and  official  classes  in  general. — Since  the 
mishpat  struggle  turned  around  the  question  of  law,  it  involved 
the  legal  arrangements  of  the  nation;  it  drew  the  courts  into  its 
field,  and  swept  the  kings,  nobles,  elders,  and  ruling  classes 
into  the  storm-center  of  dispute.  The  literary  prophets 
declaimed  against  and  criticized  the  rulers  of  their  day; 
and  all  the  prophetic  emphasis  upon  the  official  class  refers 
fundamentally  to  the  interests  of  mishpat,  or  justice. 

Amos  desires  to  see  mishpat  established  "in  the  gate," 
meaning  thereby  the  courts  of  law,  which  were  controlled  by 
the  upper  classes  (5:15).  Yahweh  will  rise  against  the  house 
of  King  Jeroboam  II  with  the  sword  (Amos  7:9).  Hosea 
directs  his  word  squarely  against  the  house  of  the  king  (5:1). 
All  the  princes  he  declares  to  be  revolters  (Hos.  9:15). 
They  have  set  up  kings,  but  not  by  Yahweh  (8:4).  Micah 
says  that  the  heads  of  Jacob  and  the  rulers  of  the  house  of 
Israel  do  not  know  mishpat.  They  abhor  it  (Mic.  3:1-3, 
9-11).  Isaiah  predicts  that  Yahweh  will  enter  into  mishpat 
with  the  elders  and  princes  because  they  have  oppressed  the 
poor  (3:14).  There  shall  be  woe  to  the  rulers  whose  decrees 
take  away  the  mishpat  of  the  needy  (Isa.  10:1,  2).  A  king 
shall  reign  in  righteousness,  and  princes  shall  rule  in  mishpat 
(32:1).  Zephaniah  declares  that  the  princes  are  roaring 
lions,  and  the  judges  are  evening  wolves  (3:3).  Jeremiah,  in 
his  picturesque  language,  says  that  he  is  a  fortified  city  and 
an  iron  pillar  and  brazen  walls  against  the  kings  and  princes 
(1:18).  He  says  that  surely  the  great  men  are  acquainted 
with  the  mishpat  of  Yahweh;  but,  no!  They  are  backsliders, 
who  have  broken  the  yoke  (Jer.  5:5,  6).  He  prepares  an 
object-lesson  for  the  rulers  (19:1).  He  exhorts  the  royal 
house  to  execute  mishpat  (21:12;  22:1-3).  The  ruling  classes 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         153 

shall  drink  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  Yahweh  (25:15-18). 
Ezekiel  compares  the  rulers  to  shepherds  that  eat  the  sheep. 
For  this  cause,  Yahweh  is  against  the  rulers;  and  the  national 
god  himself  will  feed  the  people  in  mishpat  (Ezek.  34:1-24). 

This  is  but  a  fraction  of  the  abundant  evidence  proving 
that  the  literary  prophets,  and  the  classes  for  whom  they 
spoke,  were  strongly  opposed  to  the  ruling  powers  in  the 
Hebrew  nation. 

The  hostility  of  the  prophets  to  the  ruling  powers  took  an 
interesting  form  in  their  opposition  to  the  "gibborim." — We 
saw  that  the  great  revolt  under  David  was  put  down  by 
the  assistance  of  mercenary  troops,  or  hired  "strong  men," 
and  that  by  their  aid  Solomon  was  elevated  to  the  throne 
against  the  wishes  of  the  peasantry  (supra,  pp.  141-43).  In 
the  Hebrew  text,  these  men  of  power  are  called  gibborim 
(plural,  II  Sam.  17:8).  They  were  among  the  principal  tools 
used  by  the  kings  in  maintaining  the  government.  It  was 
the  gibborim  who  garrisoned  the  royal  strongholds  that  held 
the  country  in  awe.  In  cases  where  the  peasants  refused  to 
submit,  bands  of  gibborim  were  sent  out  by  the  kings  and  the 
great  nobles.  Through  them  the  peasantry  were  "civilized"; 
and  through  them,  apparently,  the  Amorite  law  was  enforced 
in  opposition  to  the  old  mishpat. 

Hence  the  prophets  were  very  bitter  against  these  tools 
of  the  ruling  class.  Hosea  writes:  "Thou  didst  trust  in  thy 
way,  in  the  multitude  of  thy  gibborim;  therefore  shall  a  tumult 
arise  against  thy  people;  and  all  thy  fortresses  shall  be 
destroyed"  (Hos.  10:13,  I4)-  Amos,  the  shepherd,  says  that 
when  Yahweh  shall  punish  the  land,  the  gibborim  shall  fall: 
"Flight  shall  perish  from  the  swift  ....  neither  shall  the 
gibbor  deliver  himself;  neither  shall  he  stand  that  handleth 
the  bow;  and  he  that  is  swift  of  foot  shall  not  deliver  him- 
self; ....  and  he  that  is  courageous  among  the  gibborim 
shall  flee  away  naked  in  that  day,  saith  Yahweh"  (Amos 


154  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

2:14-16).  In  the  same  spirit,  Isaiah  classes  the  paid  police 
with  the  nobles  who  hire  them.  Yahweh  will  take  away  the 
gibbor,  and  the  man  of  war,  and  the  judge,  and  the  captain 
of  fifty,  and  the  counsellor,  and  the  honorable  man,  etc.  (Isa. 
3:1,2).  At  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  the  King  of 
Babylon  took  many  of  these  gibborim  away  from  Judah  and 
carried  them  into  his  own  land  (II  Kings  24: 1 6). 

The  social  struggle  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  question  of 
property  in  land. — The  problem  of  the  Bible  becomes  increas- 
ingly vivid  and  concrete  when  we  realize  that  it  had  much  to 
do  with  the  land  question.  Samuel's  warning  about  the  mish- 
pat  of  the  kingdom  puts  heavy  emphasis  upon  the  concen- 
tration of  landed  property  in  the  hands  of  the  nobles  (I  Sam. 
8:14,  15).  Elijah  condemned  King  Ahab  for  seizing  the  land 
of  Naboth  (I  Kings,  chap.  21).  Micah  and  Isaiah  condemned 
the  ruling  class  for  adding  house  to  house  and  field  to  field 
(Mic.  2:1,  2;  Isa.  3:14;  5:8).  Ezekiel  demands  that  the 
prince  shall  not  seize  the  people's  land  to  thrust  them  out; 
so  that  the  people  shall  not  be  scattered  every  man  from  his 
possession  (Ezek.  46:18).  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which 
is  impregnated  with  the  prophetic  spirit,  curses  the  removal 
of  landmarks  (Deut.  19:14;  27:17). 

The  prophets  make  no  distinction  between  seizing  land, 
as  Ahab  did  in  the  case  of  Naboth,  and  foreclosing  a  mortgage. 
In  their  view,  all  concentration  of  land  is  practically  in  the 
same  category,  because  it  alienates  the  soil  from  the  ancient 
families  and  clanships. 

The  prophets  regard  the  Hebrew  nation  as  a  clan  brother- 
hood, or  group  of  blood  relatives. — Here,  in  a  nutshell,  is  one 
phase  of  the  idea  revolving  in  the  minds  of  the  prophets,  and 
less  clearly  in  the  untutored  thought  of  their  oppressed  con- 
stituents: The  Hebrew  nation  was  regarded  as  an  extension 
of  the  primitive  clan.  Amos  refers  to  the  people  of  his  day  as 
the  "clan"  (mishphachah}  which  Yahweh  brought  up  out  of 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         155 

the  land  of  Egypt  (sn).1  Repeatedly  they  are  called  the 
"  children  "  (banim)  of  Israel  (Amos  3:1;  9:7;  Hos.  i :  1 1 ;  etc.) . 
Again,  they  are  spoken  of  as  the  " house, "  or  "family,"  of 
Israel  (bayith,  Amos  5:1;  Mic.  1:5;  Hos.  5:1;  etc.).  These 
terms  are  not  mere  symbols,  or  figures  of  speech.  They  are 
used  by  the  prophets  in  their  literal  sense.  The  Hebrew  nation 
is  looked  upon  as  a  group  of  blood-relatives,  descended  straight 
from  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  their  nomadic  forefathers. 

The  persistence  of  the  ancient,  clan  psychology  explains  the 
prophetic  attitude  on  morals  and  economics. — Regarding  the 
nation  in  this  way,  as  a  mere  extension  of  the  clan,  it  was  easy 
for  the  prophets  to  apply  the  ethics  of  the  clan  to  the  social 
problems  around  them.  The  Hebrew  nation  was  a  group  of 
brothers.  Therefore  the  individual  members  of  the  nation 
ought  to  treat  each  other  like  brothers.  For  instance,  when 
a  poor  Israelite  is  forced  to  borrow  in  order  to  pay  taxes,  or 
to  float  himself  over  a  bad  season,  the  more  fortunate,  wealthy 
Israelite  should  open  his  bounty  and  lend  freely  without 
asking  interest.  The  debtor  should  be  treated  with  great  con- 
sideration by  the  creditor  as  touching  the  matter  of  repay- 
ment. It  was  an  abomination  for  a  creditor  to  take  the 
personal  property,  or  the  land,  of  a  poor  debtor  who  was 
unable  to  meet  his  liabilities.  It  was  equally  abominable  to 
reduce  the  debtor  to  slavery  in  order  to  work  out  a  loan.  We 
noticed  that  the  debtor  class  augmented  the  following  of  David 
at  the  cave  of  Adullam,  far  back  in  the  time  of  King  Saul 
(I  Sam.  22:2);  and  a  typical  case  is  found  in  the  time  of  Elisha, 
in  the  ninth  century:  "Now  there  cried  a  certain  woman,  of 
the  wives  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  unto  Elisha,  saying,  Thy 
servant  my  husband  is  dead;  and  thou  knowest  that  thy  serv- 
ant did  fear  Yahweh;  and  the  creditor  is  come  to  take  unto 
him  my  two  children  to  be  bondmen"  (II  Kings  4:1).  A 
more  impressive  illustration  from  a  later  period  follows: 

1  See  "Kinship  Institutions  of  Israel,"  chap,  vi,  supra,  p.  47. 


156  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Then  there  arose  a  great  cry  of  the  people  and  of  their  wives  against 

their  brethren We  are  mortgaging  our  fields,  and  our  vineyards, 

and  our  houses.  Let  us  get  grain  because  of  the  dearth.  There  were 
also  those  that  said,  We  have  borrowed  money  for  the  king's  tribute 
upon  our  fields  and  our  vineyards.  Yet  now  our  flesh  is  as  the  flesh  of 
our  brethren,  our  children  as  their  children.  And,  lo,  we  bring  into 

bondage  our  sons  and  our  daughters  to  be  slaves Neither  is  it  in 

our  power  to  help  it ;  for  other  men  have  our  fields  and  our  vineyards 
(Neh.  5:1-5;  italics  ours). 

Another  good  illustration  is  found  in  the  Book  of  Job. 
The  famous  hero  of  this  book  is  "perfect  and  upright";  and 
he  fears  Yahweh  (1:1,  8).  Job,  like  Abraham,  represents 
the  primitive  social  type;  for  he  is  a  shepherd,  and  has  large 
possessions  in  flocks  and  herds.  Speaking  from  the  standpoint 
of  his  fear  of  Yahweh,  his  righteousness,  and  his  primitive 
social  outlook,  he  describes  the  foreclosure  of  mortgages,  and 
its  effects,  as  follows: 

There  are  those  that  remove  the  landmarks.    They  violently  take 

away  flocks They  drive  away  the  ass  of  the  fatherless.     They 

take  the  widow's  ox  for  a  pledge.  They  turn  the  needy  out  of  the  way 
(Job  24:2-4;  italics  ours). 

Job  goes  forth  to  the  law  court  at  the  city  gate,  where  the 
princes  and  the  nobles  hold  him  in  profound  awe  and  the 
greatest  respect.  He  examines  the  cases  that  are  before  the 
court.  He  delivers  the  needy,  and  helps  the  fatherless.  He 
confounds  the  unrighteous,  and  rescues  the  helpless  prey  of 
the  wicked.  His  mishpat  is  like  a  diadem  and  a  robe  (Job 
29:7-17).  But  all  this  benignant  activity  is,  of  course,  purely 
ideal.  It  is  what  the  prophets  and  their  friends  would  like  to 
see,  but  not  what  actually  exists.  The  stern  reality  is  pictured 
by  Amos  when  he  says,  "They  hate  him  that  reproveth  in 
the  gate;  and  they  abhor  him  that  speaketh  uprightly" 
(Amos  5:10). 

The  prophets  declare  that  the  claims  of  kinship  avail 
nothing.  Wealthy  creditors  refuse  to  abandon  their  unbrotherly 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         157 

practices.  "They  hunt  every  man  his  brother  with  a  net" 
(Mic.  7:2).  "No  man  spareth  his  brother"  (Isa.  9:19). 
"Trust  ye  not  in  any  brother;  for  every  brother  will  utterly 
supplant"  (Jer.  9:4). 

The  literary  prophets  do  not  stand  for  "human  rights"  in 
the  abstract. — It  should  now  be  emphasized  that,  in  spite 
of  all  their  championship  of  the  needy  and  the  oppressed, 
the  prophets  never  at  any  time  stood  for  what  we  today  call 
"human  rights."  This  is  proved  by  ample  evidence.  Let 
us  take  a  concrete  illustration:  While  the  prophets  were 
against  the  enslavement  of  Hebrews  by  Hebrews,  they  did 
not  oppose  the  institution  of  human  slavery,  even  among 
their  own  people;  for  they  thought  it  "right"  for  Israelites 
to  hold  slaves  from  other  nations.  Thus,  Jeremiah  declaims 
against  human  slavery  only  in  a  limited  sense : 

The  word  that  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  Yahweh  ....  that  every 
man  should  let  his  man-slave,  and  every  man  his  woman-slave,  that 
is  a  Hebrew  or  a  Bebrewess,  go  free;  that  none  should  make  bondmen  of 
them — of  a  Jew  his  brother  (Jer.  34:8,  9). 

In  this  passage  the  prophet  refers  to  a  number  of  laws  that 
had  been  well  known  to  the  Hebrew  people  for  many  years. 
These  laws  are  now  found  scattered  through  the  Pentateuch. 
According  to  a  regulation  found  in  the  E  document,  a  Hebrew 
might  hold  another  Hebrew  as  a  slave  for  six  years  only; 
and  after  that  he  was  to  let  his  "brother"  go  free  (Exod.  21:2). 
This  ordinance,  or  custom,  or  mishpat,  is  repeated,  almost 
word  for  word,  in  another  place  (Deut.  15:12);  and  it  seems 
to  be  the  basis  of  Jeremiah's  utterance  (cf.  Jer.  34:12-16). 
Indeed,  we  may  search  the  pages  of  the  literary  prophets 
in  vain  to  find  a  single  instance  in  which  the  question  of  human 
slavery  in  the  abstract  is  discussed.  Amos  passes  over  it  in 
silence.  Micah  says  nothing  about  it.  Isaiah  makes  no  men- 
tion of  it.  Hosea  does  not  raise  the  subject.  And  so  with 
all  the  prophets.  Their  attitude  with  reference  to  human 


i $8  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

slavery  as  an  institution,  and  with  reference  to  "human  rights" 
in  the  abstract,  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
a  whole.1 

The  head  of  the  Hebrew  house  was  the  baal,  or  owner  of 
wife,  children,  and  slaves.  He  bought  his  wife;  and  he  could 
sell  his  children  (p.  41,  supra).  The  so-called  "tenth"  com- 
mandment is  a  clear  and  absolute  recognition  of  human  slavery 
(p.  50).  Moreover,  the  institution  of  slavery  is  legalized 
and  regulated  by  an  ordinance  in  the  Book  of  Leviticus,  which 
we  have  already  considered,  and  we  quote  again: 

As  for  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids  whom  thou  shalt  have:  Of 
the  nations  that  are  round  about  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and 
bondmaids.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn 
among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with 
you,  which  they  have  begotten  in  your  land;  and  they  shall  be  your 
possession.  And  ye  shall  make  them  for  an  inheritance  for  your  children 
after  you,  to  hold  for  a  possession.  Of  them  shall  ye  take  your  bondmen 
forever.  But  over  your  brethren,  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not 
rule,  one  over  another,  with  rigor  (Lev.  25:44-46). 

Thus  we  find  ourselves  returning  again  and  again  to  the 
standpoint  of  the  primitive  clan.  This  is  fundamentally  the 
prophetic  point  of  view;  the  prophets  take  it,  in  common  with 
the  authors  of  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
not  right  for  the  children  of  Israel  to  hold  each  other  as  bond- 
men; but  they  may  hold  foreigners  in  slavery  forever.  It 
is  not  right  for  the  children  of  Israel  to  lend  to  each  other 
upon  interest;  but  they  may  lend  to  foreigners  upon  interest 
(Deut.  23:19,  20;  Exod.  22:25-27).  The  children  of  Israel 
shall  not  eat  tainted  meat,  coming  from  an  animal  that  has 
died  of  itself;  but  they  may  give  it  to  the  sojourner  to  eat, 
or  sell  it  to  a  foreigner  (Deut.  14:21). 

These  considerations  make  it  clear  that  the  prophets  were 
not  "democrats"  in  the  modern,  present-day  sense  of  the  word. 

1  We  have  already  considered  this  phase  of  the  subject  in  our  study  of  kinship  and 
industry  in  Israel  (chaps.  \i  and  vii,  supra);  so  that  once  more  the  results  of  previous 
investigation  fall  into  place  as  we  advance  into  the  problem. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         159 

They  faithfully  did  their  best,  according  to  the  light  they  had, 
even  to  the  adventuring  of  their  lives.  There  can  be  no  real 
religious  gain  in  viewing  the  prophets  as  "democrats."  Their 
morality,  at  its  best,  was  a  matter  of  partial  vision.  The 
prophets  have  been  credited  with  a  loftier  morality  than  they 
really  expounded,  for  the  simple  reason  that  statements 
which  mean  one  thing  in  the  Hebrew  version  appear  to  mean 
something  else  in  a  modern  translation.  Suppose  we  read 
the  famous  passage  which  the  King  James  Version  translates 
thus:  "What  doth  the  LORD  require  of  thee  but  to  do  justly, 
and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?" 
Now,  the  modern  layman  reads  into  this  passage  all  the  mean- 
ing with  which  these  particular  modern  words  are  charged 
at  the  present  time;  and  the  modern  scholar,  too,  is  con- 
stantly in  danger  of  being  caught  in  the  same  toils,  unless  he 
bears  in  mind  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  social  situa- 
tion in  which  the  Hebrew  passage  itself  was  written.  A 
much  more  literal  and  scientifically  faithful  translation  of 
the  above  passage  reads  as  follows:  "What  does  Yahweh 
require  of  thee  but  to  do  mishpat?"  etc.  In  the  first  place, 
the  idea  of  Yahweh  has  the  force  which  we  have  seen  attaching 
to  it  in  ancient  Israel.  But  the  central  thought  is  the  doing 
of  mishpat,  \vhich  inevitably  means  no  more  than  we  have  been 
showing  that  it  actually  meant  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
and  elsewhere  in  the  Bible.  The  prophets,  then,  were  not 
exponents  of  modern  morals;  and  this  fact  has  to  be  carried 
clearly  in  mind  as  we  study  the  development  of  Bible  religion.1 

1  The  New  Testament,  as  we  shall  set  later,  is  as  far  from  the  modern  point  of 
view  as  the  Old  Testament.  The  question  of  human  rights  is  not  considered  in  the 
gospels;  but  in  the  epistles  the  legality  and  rightfulness  of  slavery  are  conceded. 
Slaves  are  exhorted  to  be  obedient  unto  their  owners  (Eph.  6:5,  8;  Col.  3: 22;  I  Tim. 
6:1;  Titus  2:9).  In  these  passages,  the  original  Greek  reads  "bondservant,"  or 
"slave,"  as  indicated  in  the  American  Revised  Version,  margin;  but  the  King  James 
translation  renders  by  the  word  "servant,"  without  comment.  The  apostle  Paul 
sent  a  fugitive  Christian  slave  back  to  his  master  (Letter  to  Philemon).  The  New 
Testament,  however,  can  be  counted  on  the  side  of  freedom  through  its  principle  of 
brotherly  love  which,  if  carried  out,  leads  to  a  broadening  justice. 


160  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Thus,  the  prophetic  opposition  to  the  wealthy  had  no  affinity 
with  modern  radicalism  or  socialism. — The  Bible  has  been  quoted 
in  modern  times  as  an  authority  for  social  radicalism.  The 
hobby-rider  has  gone  to  it  in  search  of  material  to  support 
his  cause.  Passages  that  seem  to  favor  his  program  of  revolu- 
tion have  been  cited,  while  the  rest  of  the  Bible  has  been 
ignored.  His  interest  in  the  Scriptures  attaches  only  to  a 
few  verses  or  passages.  In  other  words,  particular  texts 
have  been  used  without  knowing  what  they  signify  in  the 
original  tongues,  and,  above  all,  without  studying  their 
context — i.e.,  the  other  material  which  bears  on  their  meaning. 
Our  present  study,  as  far  as  we  have  gone,  shows  what  a 
mistake  it  is  to  use  the  Bible  in  this  way. 

We  have  seen  that  Hebrew  society,  like  all  ancient  civiliza- 
tion, consisted  of  two  classes,  the  upper  and  the  lower.1  The 
upper  class  was  composed  of  the  householders,  who  were 
called  in  Hebrew  the  baals.  This  term  indicates  ownership, 
or  possession.  The  power  of  the  master-class  took  legal  form 
in  two  ways — first,  in  its  ownership  of  the  remainder  of  the 
population;  second,  in  its  ownership  of  the  land.  These 
institutions  were  maintained  by  physical  force.  When  the 
Hebrew  nation  arose  at  the  point  of  coalescence  between 
Israelites  and  Amorites,  two  ideas  about  human  relations 
came  into  conflict.  Although  these  ideas  were  expressed  in  a 
great  many  ways,  they  turned  largely  around  the  subject  of 
landed  property,  because  every  human  being  is  vitally  affected 
by  his  relation  to  the  land.  Now,  it  is  a  law  of  social  evolu- 
tion that  the  administration,  or  "government,"  of  any  social 
group  will  represent  the  interests  that  are  active  enough  to 
control  it.2  The  fact  that  a  large  part  of  the  population  was 

1  Chaps,  vi  and  vii,  supra,  pp.  40-62. 

1  This  law  is  as  absolute  and  certain  as  any  law  within  the  field  of  science  ?n 
general.  It  is  illustrated  by  all  history;  and  is  no  more  true  of  the  Hebrew  nation  than 
it  is  of  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  Greeks,  Romans,  Germans,  English,  Chinese,  or 
any  other  people. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         161 

already  organized  around  the  commercial  view  of  landholding 
constrained  the  machinery  of  the  national  government  in  support 
of  that  view.  While  the  more  directly  Israelite  part  of  the 
nation  succeeded  in  placing  a  few  kings  on  the  throne,  and  in 
promulgating  a  national  "platform"  in  the  shape  of  the 
earlier  Old  Testament  "law-codes,"  the  pressure  of  commercial 
civilization  crowded  hard  upon  the  genial  sentiments  which  Israel 
imported  from  the  clan  life  of  the  desert. 

What  the  prophets  really  fought  against,  in  their  fierce 
denunciations  of  the  wealthy,  was  the  contraction  of  the 
master-class  upon  itself,  and  the  crowding  of  the  less  fortunate 
baals,  their  widows,  and  orphans  into  the  lower,  enslaved  class. 
The  prophets  never  protested  against  human  slavery,  or  any 
other  institution  whose  logic  ultimately  denies  "human  rights." 
As  a  consequence,  they  have  no  affinity  with  modern  democ- 
racy. The  prophets  are  to  be  compared  to  the  alert,  modern 
businessman  who  pays  no  heed  to  the  "wage  question"  as 
it  affects  the  "laboring  class,"  but  who  protests  vigorously 
against  the  competition  of  his  big  rival.  Whatever  the  proph- 
ets, and  the  Bible  in  general,  have  to  say  about  the  subject 
of  wealth  and  property  must  be  studied  in  full  view  of  all  the 
Bible  facts.  The  writings  of  the  prophets  are  virtually  a 
series  of  ex  parte  pamphlets  in  which  only  one  phase  of  the 
issue  is  voiced.1  Take  the  following  passages,  for  instance, 
from  the  books  of  Amos  and  Micah;  read  them  in  view  of 
the  considerations  with  which  we  have  been  occupied;  and 
remember  that  these  men  came  from  small  country  villages  hi 
Judah : 

Woe  to  them  that  are  at  ease  in  Zion  [the  capital  of  the  Southern 
Kingdom],  and  to  them  that  are  secure  in  the  mountain  of  Samaria  [the 
capital  of  the  Northern  Kingdom] — the  notable  men  of  the  chief  of  the 
nations,  to  whom  the  house  of  Israel  come Ye  that  put  far  away 

1  It  may  be  well  to  say  again  that  we  are  not  finding  fault  with  the  prophets, 
but  merely  stating  facts  about  them.  They  had  to  work  in  view  of  existing  conditions; 
and  they  did  their  best  according  to  the  light  they  had. 


162  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  evil  day,  and  cause  the  seat  of  violence  to  come  near;  that  lie  upon 
beds  of  ivory,  and  stretch  themselves  upon  their  couches,  and  eat  the 
lambs  out  of  the  flock,  and  the  calves  out  of  the  midst  of  the  stall;  that 
sing  idle  songs  to  the  sound  of  the  viol;  that  invent  for  themselves 
instruments  of  music,  like  David's;  that  drink  wine  in  bowls,  and 
anoint  themselves  with  the  chief  oils ;  but  they  are  not  grieved  for  the 

affliction  of  Joseph The  lord  Yahweh  hath  sworn  by  himself, 

saith  Yahweh  the  god  of  hosts:  /  abhor  the  pride  of  Jacob,  and  hate  his 
palaces.  Therefore  will  I  deliver  up  the  city  and  all  that  is  therein  (Amos 
6:1,3-6,8). 

I  hate,  I  despise  your  feasts,  and  I  will  not  smell  in  your  solemn 
assemblies.1  Yea,  though  ye  offer  me  your  burnt  offerings  and  meal 
offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them ;  neither  will  I  regard  the  peace-offerings 
of  your  fat  beasts.  Take  thou  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy  songs, 
for  I  will  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols.  But  let  mishpat  roll  down  like 
waters,  and  righteousness  as  a  mighty  stream  (Amos  5:21-24). 

Woe  to  them  that  devise  iniquity  and  work  evil  upon  their  beds! 
When  the  morning  is  light,  they  practice  it,  because  it  is  in  the  power 
of  their  hand.  And  they  covet  fields,  and  seize  them;  and  houses,  and 
take  them  away.  And  they  oppress  a  man  and  his  family,  even  a  man 
and  his  heritage  (Mic.  2:1-2). 

What  is  the  transgression  of  Jacob  ?  Is  it  not  Samaria  ?  And  what 
are  the  high  places  of  Judah?  Are  they  not  Jerusalem?  Therefore 
I  will  make  Samaria  as  a  heap  of  the  field,  as  places  for  planting  vine- 
yards; and  I  will  pour  down  the  stones  thereof  into  the  valley;  and  I 
will  uncover  the  foundations  thereof  (Mic.  1:5,  6). 

And  I  said,  Hear,  I  pray  you,  ye  heads  of  Jacob,  and  rulers  of  the 
house  of  Israel:  Is  it  not  for  you  to  know  mishpat? — ye  who  hate  the 
good  and  love  the  evil;  who  pluck  off  their  skin  from  off  them,  and  their 
flesh  from  off  their  bones;  who  also  eat  the  flesh  of  my  people,  and  flay 
their  skin  from  off  them,  and  break  their  bones,  and  chop  them  in  pieces 

as  for  the  pot,  and  as  flesh  within  the  cauldron Therefore  shall 

Zion  for  your  sake  be  plowed  as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  shall  become 
heaps,  and  the  mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high  places  of  a  forest 
(Mic.  3:1-3,  12). 

1  In  primitive  religion,  the  gods  were  supposed  to  draw  near  and  smell  the  smoke 
of  the  incense  and  of  the  cooked  food  as  it  rolled  upward.  Thus  David  says  to  Saul: 
"If  Yahweh  hath  stirred  thee  up  against  me,  let  him  smell  an  offering"  (I  Sam.  26:19). 
In  the  Iliad  of  the  Greeks  the  gods  do  the  same.  In  the  Babylonian  tablets,  the  gods 
are  described  as  flocking  about  the  altar  and  inhaling  the  sacrifice. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         163 

These  highly  interesting  and  well-written  passages  are  not 
scientific  evidence  about  the  merits  of  the  transactions  lying 
in  the  background.  They  are  the  outcries  of  two  very  bewil- 
dered countrymen,  protesting  in  the  name  of  their  ancestral 
deity  against  conditions  and  practices  that  bear  hard  on  the 
social  class  from  which  Amos  and  Micah  sprang.  The  preju- 
dice of  the  small,  country  property-holder  against  the 
wealthy  class  in  the  centers  of  population  is  so  clearly  in  evi- 
dence that  it  cannot  be  denied.  The  prophetic  protests  read 
well;  and  they  read  still  better  if  taken  out  of  their  context 
as  a  basis  for  homiletic  discourse.  But  in  the  present  investiga- 
tion, we  have  to  take  them  in  view  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 
While  they  are  not  impartial,  scientific  evidence  about  the 
merits  of  the  Hebrew  social  problem,  they  are  scientific  evi- 
dence touching  the  thoughts  of  certain  persons  and  classes  in 
the  Hebrew  nation.  The  prophets,  indeed,  raise  the  social 
problem  without  solving  it.  While  they  are  evidently  dealing 
with  public,  institutional  questions,  their  point  of  view  per- 
mits them  to  treat  these  questions  only  in  terms  of  individual- 
ism. According  to  their  view,  all  the  troubles  of  the  world 
arise  from  the  bad  will  of  certain  individuals — chiefly  rich 
persons.  For  the  prophets  denounce  the  mischiefs  that 
spring  from  slavery  (private  monopoly  of  human  labor) 
and  landownership  (or  private  monopoly  of  the  soil) — they 
denounce  the  evils  attending  these  law-established  institu- 
tions, while  at  the  same  time  they  either  tacitly  or  explicitly 
advocate  the  continuance  of  these  institutions.  So  Jeremiah, 
the  last  of  the  great  pre-exilic  thinkers  and  the  heir  of  all  the 
pre-exilic  prophets,  demands  only  the  release  of  Hebrew  slaves 
from  bondage;  tacitly  indorses  the  institution  of  slavery  as 
touching  non-Hebrews;  and  looks  forward  to  the  continuance 
of  private  landownership  (34:8-16;  32:15,  43,  44).  In  this 
regard,  the  prophet  Jeremiah  stands  upon  common  ground  with 
the  other  prophets.  The  troubles  of  humanity,  according  to 


164  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

these  men,  are  chiefly  due  to  the  rich,  who  exclude  the  less 
fortunate  Hebrew  free  men  from  a  legal  title  to  ownership  in 
the  world.1 

The  prophets  divided  into  two  schools — for  and  against  the 
ancient  "mishpat"  of  Yah  wen. — It  now  becomes  necessary  to 
point  out  that  from  a  very  early  period  in  the  national  struggle 
the  prophets  began  to  divide  into  two  schools  corresponding  to 
the  parties  in  the  great  conflict.  Thus  the  prophet  Nathan, 
of  the  Amorite  city  of  Jerusalem,  took  the  side  of  Solomon 
against  the  peasantry.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prophet 
Ahijah,  of  the  Israelite  village  of  Shiloh,  came  out  on  the 
opposite  side  (I  Kings  1:8,  11-45;  11:26-40).  Nathan  and 
Ahijah  mark  the  faint  beginnings  of  a  movement  that  split  the 
company  of  prophets  in  twain.  Although  the  kings  and 
wealthy  officials  were  denounced  by  men  like  Amos,  they 
were  supported,  on  the  other  hand,  by  a  large  and  influential 
class  of  prophets.  The  Amos-prophets  upheld  the  ancient, 
Israelite  mishpat  of  Yahweh.  But  the  other  class  of  prophets 
upheld  the  legal  and  moral  usages  and  ideas  inherited  from  the 
Amorite  side  of  the  nation's  ancestry,  and  they  identified 
Yahweh  therewith.  The  perplexing  part  of  the  situation  was, 
that  both  classes  of  prophets  thought  they  knew  the  will  of 
Yahweh  and  believed  they  were  speaking  self-evident  truths. 
As  for  the  nation  as  a  whole,  it  knew  not  which  prophets  to 

1  One  of  the  moral  tragedies  of  history  is  the  assumption  that  the  prophetic  doc- 
trine is  a  final  statement  of  the  social  problem,  and  that  it  can  be  transferred  bodily 
from  ancient  to  modern  times  without  scientific  criticism  or  interpretation.  Our 
thesis  at  this  point  is,  that  while  the  prophets  are  actually  discussing  the  social  problem, 
they  conduct  their  argument  only  in  terms  of  individualism  without  realizing  the  true 
nature  of  their  subject,  and  therefore  without  having  a  real  social  program.  A  case 
in  point  is  furnished  by  Professor  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  of  Cambridge  University,  who 
has  given  us  one  of  the  useful  and  scholarly  modern  handbooks  on  the  prophets. 
"No  doubt,"  writes  Kirkpatrick,  "there  were  not  a  few  among  the  wealthy  nobles  of 
Micah's  day  who  prided  themselves  on  not  being  guilty  of  injustice.  Yes!  perhaps 
they  were  entirely  within  their  legal  rights  when  they  seized  the  land  of  some  poor 
neighbor  who  through  bad  seasons  and  misfortune  and  pressure  of  heavy  taxes  had 
failed  to  pay  his  debts  and  fallen  into  their  power.  But  was  conduct  like  that 
brotherly?" — The  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets  (London,  1901),  pp.  225,  226. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE         165 

follow.  The  consequence  was  that  a  man  believed  the  prophet 
whose  words  appealed  to  him.  So  the  nation  was  divided  in  a 
way  that  suggests  the  parties  in  a  modern  political  campaign. 

It  is  hard  to  find  the  terms  that  will  justly  describe  these 
two  classes  of  prophets.  The  Amos-class  might  in  some  ways 
be  appropriately  called  the  "protestant"  prophets;  while 
the  others,  who  supported  the  kings  and  nobles,  might  be  called 
the  "official"  prophets.  Again,  the  two  schools  might  respect- 
ively be  termed  "radical"  and  "conservative,"  or  "liberal" 
and  "tory."  But  there  are  objections  to  all  these  terms.  On 
the  whole,  it  seems  best  to  call  the  prophets  who  upheld  the 
kings  and  wealthy  classes  the  "regulars,"  while  the  Amos- 
prophets  may  be  spoken  of  as  "insurgents." 

In  the  background  of  the  writings  of  all  the  "insurgent" 
prophets,  as  we  shall  now  call  them,  we  can  plainly  see  the 
opposing  school  of  prophecy.  There  was  as  much  diificulty 
then  as  now  in  finding  words  that  clearly  distinguish  the 
two  schools.  In  most  cases,  the  "regular"  prophets  are 
called  simply  "the  prophets";  and  we  have  to  depend  upon 
the  context  in  order  to  find  out  which  prophetic  school  is 
meant.  After  Amos  had  uttered  his  message  in  the  streets  of 
Bethel,  he  was  told  by  the  king's  priest  not  to  prophesy 
any  more  in  that  place,  but  to  flee  away  to  Judah,  where  he 
belonged,  and  there  "eat  bread"  and  prophesy  there  (Amos 
7:10-13).  The  king's  priest  here  touches,  in  a  word,  upon 
the  economic  distinction  between  the  regular  and  insurgent 
prophets.  He  is  well  acquainted  with  the  king's  prophets 
who  preach  for  "bread,"  or  wages;  and  he  assumes  that  Amos 
would  not  be  preaching  unless  he  were  paid  for  it  by  some- 
body. The  only  way  in  which  Amos  can  show  the  priest  that 
he  is  not  a  hireling  prophet  is  by  means  of  a  paradox:  He 
replies  that  he  is  neither  a  prophet  nor  a  son  of  a  prophet;  but 
he  is  a  herdsman  and  a  dresser  of  sycamore  trees;  and  Yahweh 
moved  him  to  leave  his  home  in  Judah,  and  go  to  prophesy 


166  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

in  Israel  (Amos  7:14,  15).  It  is  but  scant  courtesy  that  he 
gets  from  the  royal  priest;  and  he  gives  but  scant  courtesy 
in  return.  One  can  imagine  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
presence  of  a  crowd  of  sympathetic  and  muscular  shep- 
herds and  farmers,  attending  the  market-fair  at  Bethel, 
the  life  of  Amos  would  not  have  been  worth  much  on  the 
memorable  day  when  he  invaded  the  streets  of  the  Ephraimite 
village. 

The  line  of  distinction  thus  indicated  between  the  two 
schools  of  prophecy  reappears  again  and  again.  Listen  to 
Micah:  "Hear  this,  I  pray  you,  ye  heads  of  Jacob  and  rulers 
of  the  house  df  Israel,  who  abhor  mishpat  and  pervert  all 
equity:  They  build  up  Zion  with  blood  and  Jerusalem  with 
iniquity.  The  heads  thereof  judge  for  reward,  and  the  priests 
thereof  teach  for  hire,  and  the  prophets  thereof  divine  for  money. " 
These  regular  prophets  make  war  on  all  who  put  not  into 
their  mouths;  yet  they  lean  upon  Yahweh,  and  say,  "Is  not 
Yahweh  in  the  midst  of  us?  No  evil  shall  come  upon  us." 
They  are  prophets  of  Yahweh;  but  they  uphold  the  usages 
and  ideas  which  the  nation  got  from  the  Amorite  side  of  its 
descent;  so  they  are  the  prophets  "that  make  the  people  to 
err"  (Mic.  3:5-11). 

Isaiah  declares  that  the  most  contemptible  figure  against 
which  the  insurgent  prophets  contend  is  the  regular 
prophet;  for  he  says  that  while  the  elder  is  the  head,  the 
prophet  who  teaches  "lies"  is  the  tail  (9:15).*  He  is  a  drunk- 
ard, swallowed  up  of  wine,  and  staggering  with  strong  drink 
(Isa.  28:7).  He  will  be  taken  away  by  Yahweh,  along  with 
his  employers  and  associates  in  the  upper  class  (3:1-8). 
He  shall  stumble  in  the  night,  says  Hosea  (4:5).  He  is  a 
fool;  and  the  snare  of  the  bird-catcher  is  in  all  his  ways 

1  This  verse  is  taken  to  be  a  "gloss"  by  many  scholars;  but  in  the  present  case 
it  makes  little  difference  whether  the  passage  were  written  by  the  original  prophet, 
or  by  some  later  editor.  In  such  cases,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  sociological  student 
to  go  into  the  literary  and  historical  criticism. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE         167 

(Hos.  9:7,  8).  Zephaniah  declares  that  the  regular  prophet 
is  a  light  and  treacherous  person  (3:4). 

But  the  bitterest  invectives  against  these  prophets  were 
uttered  by  Jeremiah,  the  last  of  the  great  insurgents  before 
the  Exile.  They  shall  be  ashamed,  along  with  the  whole 
house  of  Israel  (Jer.  2:26).  They  prophesy  falsely;  and 
then,  by  this  means,  the  priests  have  dominion  (Jer.  5:31; 
6:13;  8:10).  The  regular  prophets  shall  be  dashed  one 
against  the  other  without  pity  or  compassion  (13:13, 14).  The 
Temple  of  Yahweh  at  Jerusalem  shall  be  destroyed  like  the 
House  of  Yahweh  at  Shiloh;  and  the  city  shall  be  desolate 
without  inhabitant  (26:1-9).  On  account  of  these  utter- 
ances, Jeremiah  was  arrested,  and  brought  before  the  court 
of  nobles,  at  the  gate  of  the  Temple.  He  was  indicted  by 
the  regular  prophets  and  their  friends  for  high  treason;  and 
his  accusers  demanded  that  he  be  put  to  death  (26:11). 
It  was  a  dramatic  scene — one  of  the  greatest  moments  in 
Hebrew  history,  reminding  us  of  the  appearance  of  Martin 
Luther  before  the  Diet  of  Worms.  Jeremiah's  life  was  in 
danger.  But  he  had  friends  and  influence,  even  among  the 
official  classes  whom  he  denounced;  and  although  he  was 
frowned  upon,  as  Amos  was  at  Bethel,  he  was  not  condemned 
by  the  court  (26:i6-24).x  The  fact  is,  that  while  both 
schools  of  prophecy  wanted  to  be  authoritative  in  the  eyes  of  the 
entire  nation,  each  school  had  a  powerful  constituency;  and  the 
nation  itself  was  divided  into  parties. 

The  modern  historical  study  of  the  Bible  has  focused  atten- 
tion upon  one  of  the  great  prophetic  schools  (the  insurgent) 
as  a  positive,  creative  element  in  the  evolution  of  Bible  reli- 

1  The  elders  of  Judah,  who  spoke  in  favor  of  Jeremiah  upon  this  occasion,  and 
favored  his  release  from  the  charge  of  high  treason,  did  not  necessarily  indorse  the 
platform  of  the  insurgent  prophets;  but  they  were  aware  that  Jeremiah  had  many 
sympathizers  and  adherents;  and  they  knew  that  his  death  might  be  followed  by  a 
bloody  revolution  such  as  had  already  occurred  more  than  once.  Jeremiah  was 
released  on  the  technical  ground  that  he  had  spoken  in  good  faith  "in  the  name  of 
Yahweh"  (Jer.  26:16). 


168  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

gion.  And  if  we  now  resolve  the  historical  method  into  socio- 
logical terms,  we  shall  at  once  lift  the  "regular"  school  into 
prominence  as  an  equally  necessary  factor  in  the  national 
development.  It  is  hard  for  us  to  realize  that  the  insurgent 
prophets  of  the  Hebrews  began  their  work  as  members  of  a 
proscribed  and  illegal  sect,  without  official  recognition  by  the 
public  authorities. 

PROVISIONAL  TABLE  OF  THE  HEBREW  PROPHETS 
EXHIBITING  THEIR  DIVISION  INTO  OPPOSING  SCHOOLS* 

"REGULARS"  "INSURGENTS" 

Nathan  of  Jerusalem  (I  Kings  i :  8)     Ahijah  of  Shiloh  (I  Kings,  chap.  1 1) 
Shemaiah  (II  Chron.  12:5-8)  Jehu  ben  Hanani  (I  Kings,  chap.  16) 

Zedekiah  ben  Chenaanah  (I  Kings,     Elijah  of  Gilead  (I  Kings,  chaps. 

chap.  22)  17  f.) 

Jonah   ben  Amittai    (II  Kings,      Micaiah  ben  Imlah  (I  Kings,  chap. 

14:25)  22) 

Hananiah  ben  Azzur  (Jer.,  chap.      Elisha    ben    Shaphat    (I    Kings, 

28)  chaps.  19  f.) 

Shemaiah  the  Nehelemite  (Jer.,    *Amos  of  Tekoa 

chap.  29) 

Ahab  ben  Kolaiah  (Jer.,  chap.  29)     *Hosea  ben  Beeri 
Zedekiah    ben    Maaseiah    (Jer.,     *Micah  of  Moresheth 

chap.  29) 

*Nahum  *Isaiah  ben  Amoz 

*Obadiah  *Zephaniah  ben  Cushi 

Anonymous  prophets  (passim)         *Jeremiah  ben  Hilkiah 

Urijah    of    Kiriath-jearim     (Jer. 
chap.  26) 

*  Starred  names  are  represented  by  books  in  the  Old  Testament  canon.  Time:  from 
David  to  the  Babylonian  exile.  Note  the  greater  proportion  of  insurgents  in  the  canon  as 
compared  with  regulars.  Jonah  is  not  starred  because  the  prophet  of  that  name  cannot 
be  identified  with  the  Book  of  Jonah. 

The  issue  between  the  opposing  schools  of  prophecy  was  not 
settled  until  the  Hebrew  nation  was  destroyed. — The  more  care- 
fully we  study  the  Old  Testament,  the  more  we  are  impressed 
by  the  unsettled  nature  of  Hebrew  history.  This  fact  pene- 
trates our  minds  very  slowly  in  all  its  breadth  and  meaning. 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE         169 

As  the  layman  casually  or  devoutly  reads  the  Bible,  it  seems 
as  if  Hebrew  life  were  based  upon  the  firm  ground  of  a  solid, 
fixed  authority  which  everybody  in  that  age  must  have  been 
constrained  to  admit  and  recognize.  But  the  more  closely 
the  situation  is  investigated,  the  more  its  unsettled  charac- 
ter impresses  itself  upon  us.  Instead  of  being  solid,  fixed, 
and  founded  in  a  way  that  was  recognized  by  everybody, 
Hebrew  life  before  the  Babylonian  exile  was  fluid,  unsettled, 
uncertain,  doubtful.  There  was  no  point  of  appeal  which 
was  final  and  authoritative  in  the  eyes  of  the  whole  nation. 
This  highly  important  aspect  of  the  Bible  problem  comes 
before  us  with  startling  distinctness  in  the  bitter  contentions 
between  the  two  schools  of  prophecy,  each  with  its  assured 
"Thus  saith  Yahweh. "  Here  indeed  the  situation  seems  to 
wind  itself  up  into  a  tangle  so  confusing  that  at  first  no  clue 
appears  by  which  we  may  thread  the  dark  maze  of  uncertainty 
and  contradiction. 

Both  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  declare  that  the  regular  prophets 
preach  out  of  their  own  heart;  they  speak  not  by  the  in- 
spiration of  Yahweh  (Jer.  23:9-40;  27:14-18;  Ezek.  13:2). 
And  Yahweh  is  against  these  prophets  when  they  say  "He 
saith"  (Jer.  23:31).  They  utter  lies  when  they  say  "Yahweh 
saith"  (Ezek.  13:6,  7).  Still  another  way  of  stating  the  case 
against  the  regular  prophets  appears  in  Ezekiel:  They  are 
deceived  by  Yahweh  himself!  (14:9.)  They  say '  'Peace !  peace ! 
Is  not  Yahweh  in  the  midst  of  us  ?  No  evil  shall  come  upon 
us"  (Mic.  3:5,  n;  Jer.  6:14;  14:13-18;  23:17;  Ezek.  13:10, 
15).  An  extremely  interesting  and  significant  notice  of  the 
conflict  between  the  two  schools  of  prophecy  is  found  hi 
I  Kings.  Upon  a  very  memorable  occasion,  four  hundred 
regular  prophets  were  gathered  in  the  presence  of  King  Ahab, 
advising  him,  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  to  go  forth  to  war 
against  the  Arameans.  The  king  sat  on  a  throne  at  the  gate 
of  Samaria,  the  capital  city  of  Israel.  The  leader  of  the 


i;o  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

prophets,  Zedekiah  ben  Chenaanah,  "made  him  horns  of  iron, 
and  said,  Thus  saith  Yahweh,  With  these  shalt  thou  push  the 
Arameans  until  they  be  consumed  "  (I  Kings  22:11).  But  now 
an  opposing  prophet  comes  upon  the  scene  with  a  message  of 
doom.  This  man,  Micaiah  ben  Imlah,  admits  that  the  other 
prophets  are  inspired  by  Yahweh;  but  he  says,  "Behold, 
Yahweh  hath  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these  thy 
prophets. "  At  the  same  time,  it  is  declared  by  Micaiah  that 
the  real  word  of  Yahweh  is  not  good  but  evil  toward  Ahab, 
and  that  the  king  will  fall  in  battle  with  the  Arameans  (I  Kings 
22 : 1 7-26). x 

This  interesting  story  implies  that  the  test  of  a  prophet 
is  the  fulfilment  of  prediction.  Exactly  the  same  test  is 
put  forward  by  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  as  follows:  "And 
if  thou  say  in  thy  heart,  How  shall  we  know  the  word  which 
Yahweh  hath  not  spoken?  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in 
the  name  of  Yahweh,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to 
pass,  that  is  the  thing  which  Yahweh  hath  not  spoken.  The 
prophet  hath  spoken  it  presumptuously.  Thou  shalt  not  be 
afraid  of  him"  (Deut.  18:21,  22).  This  would  appear  to  be 
quite  conclusive;  but,  in  reality,  it  does  not  go  to  the  heart 
of  the  issue  between  the  two  schools  of  prophecy. 

Elsewhere  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  it  is  admitted 
that  any  prophet  may  utter  a  word  that  will  come  true;  and 
in  place  of  this  test  it  substitutes  the  doctrine  that  a  prophet 
who  advocates  the  worship  of  other  gods  beside  Yahweh 
(meaning  primarily  the  Baals  of  the  Amorites)  is  not  to  be 
followed,  even  though  his  words  are  fulfilled  and  his  predic- 
tions come  to  pass!  (13:1-5;  i8:2o.)2  Thus  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  completely  eliminates  prediction  as  a  test  of 

1  As  Professor  Skinner  says  with  reference  to  Zedekiah,  "There  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  sincerity  of  this  man's  belief  in  his  own  inspiration"  (Commentary  on  Kings 
[New  York],  p.  266). 

2  When  speaking  of  "other  gods,"  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  means  primarily 
the  Baals  of  the  Amorites  (6: 14;  31 : 16). 


PROPHETS  AND  THE  MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE         171 

prophecy,  and  puts  instead  of  it  the  purely  contemporary  prin- 
ciple that  the  prophets  are  to  be  distinguished  by  the  gods  whose 
worship  they  advocate.  In  harmony  with  this  test,  Jeremiah 
declares  that  the  prophets  who  oppose  him  prophesy  by  Baal 
(2:8;  23:13).  These  two  Judean  writers,  Jeremiah  and  the 
author  of  Deuteronomy,  worked  at  a  very  late  period  of 
Hebrew  history,  in  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  near  the  time  of 
the  Babylonian  exile;  and  they  were  the  first  of  the  Judeans 
to  take  the  Baals  up  explicitly  into  the  terms  of  the  mishpat 
struggle.  This  remarkable  fact  leads  to  another  chapter  of 
exposition. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

THE  MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM 

The  national  struggle  at  length  took  the  form  of  a  conflict 
between  the  Yahweh  and  Baal  factors  in  the  Hebrew  cult. — The 
great  Hebrew  conflict  over  the  problem  of  law  and  morals 
found  expression  at  last  in  the  form  of  rivalry  between  the  gods 
inherited  from  both  sides  of  the  nation's  descent.  The  con- 
test of  Yahweh  against  the  native  Baal-principle  was  abso- 
lutely necesssary  to  the  development  of  Bible  religion.  In 
no  other  way  could  the  religion  of  Israel  have  achieved  the 
double  result  of  becoming  completely  identified  with  the 
struggle  for  morality  and  of  casting  out  polytheism.  This 
is  the  central  feature  of  the  problem.  The  final  result  of 
Hebrew  history  was  the  uniting  of  the  moral  principle  with 
the  doctrine  of  One  God.  The  moral  struggle  and  the 
cult  rivalry  cannot  be  treated  as  matters  independent  of 
each  other.  The  religion  of  the  Bible  makes  its  appeal  to 
mankind  as  a  principle  which  identifies  God  not  only  with 
the  worldwide  struggle  against  injustice,  but  with  a  fierce 
conflict  against  polytheism.  The  two  ideas  were  fused  into 
a  single  idea  in  the  glowing  heat  of  Israel's  warfare.  Poly- 
theism was  gradually  identified  with  injustice;  and  by  the 
same  token,  monotheism  slowly  came  to  stand  for  justice. 
But  neither  monotheism  nor  ethics  won  the  battle  by  itself. 
The  religion  of  the  Bible  did  not  achieve  its  victory  over  other 
cults  merely  because  it  called  for  men  to  bow  down  to  One 
God  rather  than  to  many  gods;  nor  did  it  rise  to  its  final 
triumph  on  the  basis  of  the  moral  issue  as  an  abstract  prin- 
ciple. Neither  aspect  of  Bible  religion  could  have  been 
woven  into  results  of  permanent  value  on  the  field  of  history 

172 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL   FORM          173 

without  the  other.  Both  phases  of  the  religious  evolution 
of  Israel  had  to  be  perceived  as  an  identity;  and  this  result 
was  at  length  secured  when  the  mishpat  struggle  took  the  form 
of  warfare  between  the  Yahweh  and  Baal  ideas  which  came 
from  both  sides  of  the  nation's  ancestry.  It  was  only  through 
a  mighty  explosion  within  the  Hebrew  cult  itself  that  the 
religion  of  Israel  became  a  universally  exclusive  principle. 
It  was  only  in  the  process  of  wiping  out  the  native  Baal  idea 
pertaining  to  the  Hebrew  religion  itself  that  the  evolutionary 
process  came  to  a  clear  issue.  So  long  as  Yahweh  continued 
to  be  worshiped  by  one  party  in  the  state  as  a  god  having  the 
same  character  as  the  Amorite  Baals,  and  so  long  as  the 
gods  that  were  inherited  from  the  Amorites  remained,  the 
religious  evolution  of  Israel  could  not  go  on  to  its  logical 
destiny. 

The  initial  stage  of  the  "mishpat"  struggle  was  a  blind  protest 
against  the  usages  of  oriental  civilization. — The  struggle  within 
the  Hebrew  nation  at  first  amounted  only  to  a  reaction  of 
the  highlanders  against  the  monarchy,  in  which  there  was  a 
blind  protest  by  the  more  Israelite  part  of  the  kingdom  against 
the  usages  of  oriental  civilization.  The  ideas  and  customs 
of  the  hill  clans — especially  in  Judah  and  Gilead — were  very 
similar  to  the  usages  of  the  desert  people  from  which  they 
descended.  They  turned  against  the  rule  of  David.  They 
were  discontented  under  Solomon,  the  successor  of  David, 
"because  he  burdened  the  people  with  a  heavy  yoke."  Finally 
they  cast  off  the  rule  of  Rehoboam,  the  successor  of  Solomon, 
because  he  would  not  reform  the  government.  The  hill  clans 
objected  to  the  new  and  strange  customs  that  were  being 
introduced  by  the  national  authorities;  and  their  abhorrence 
was  expressed  in  very  forcible,  dramatic  ways  (chap,  xvii, 
p.  143).  Thus  we  see  that  there  was  no  question  of  rival 
worships  in  the  initial  stage  of  the  mishpat  struggle.  Compe- 
tition between  cults  did  not  enter  into  the  problem.  The 


174  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

struggle  did  not  at  first  assume  the  character  of  a  contest 
between  gods.1 

But  this  is  not  to  say  that  the  initial  stage  of  the  struggle 
within  the  Hebrew  nation  had  no  religious  character  in  any 
respect.  We  have  repeatedly  emphasized  the  intimate  con- 
nection between  politics  and  religion  throughout  ancient 
society.  The  customs  regulating  social  intercourse  were 
invariably  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  gods.  In  accordance 
with  this  principle,  we  have  seen  that  the  mishpat  which  the 
clans  of  Israel  brought  into  the  hill-country  was  identified 
with  Yahweh,  so  that  the  oppression  of  the  free  clansmen 
under  the  monarchy  was  an  outrage  upon  their  ancestral 
religion.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  Hebrew  struggle  had 
a  religious  quality,  or  aspect,  at  the  very  beginning,  in  its 
first  period.  But  it  did  not  at  once  take  the  form  which  is 
characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  it  reduces  itself 
to  compact  expression  in  terms  of  rivalry  between  Yahwism 
and  Baalism.  At  first,  there  was  nothing  more  than  a  blind 
protest,  in  the  name  of  the  national  deity,  against  the  legal 
usages  that  outraged  the  older  customs  of  Yahweh;  but  this 
gave  a  natural  point  of  departure  for  the  entire  subsequent 
unfolding  of  religious  evolution  among  the  Hebrews.  The 
different  stages  that  now  follow  draw  themselves  out  in  a 
logical  order,  each  one  arising  from  earlier  conditions  in  the 
social  life  of  the  nation. 

The  second  stage  of  the  "mishpat"  struggle  brought  Yahweh 
into  conflict  with  the  "border-Baals." — The  kings  and  ruling 
classes  among  the  Hebrew  people  had  striven,  either  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously,  to  identify  Yahweh,  the  national 

1  The  condemnation  of  Solomon  for  worshiping  the  gods  of  surrounding  peoples 
(I  Kings  ii :  1-8,  32  f.)  is  recognized  as  an  insertion  in  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy. 
Cf.  Skinner,  Commentary  on  Kings  (New  York),  pp.  i?3f.  But  assuming  for  a 
moment  that  Ahijah's  denunciation  is  historical,  a  number  of  important  facts  have 
to  be  noticed:  (a)  the  prophet's  words  were  privately  whispered  in  a  lonely  field, 
vs.  29;  (b)  popular  idolatry  is  nowhere  alleged;  (c)  the  references  to  "other  gods" 
mention  only  the  deities  of  outside  peoples,  not  the  Baals  of  the  Amorites,  vs.  33. 


MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL   FORM          175 

god,  with  the  usages  of  settled  commercial  civilization.  They 
did  not  abandon  the  worship  of  Yahweh.  They  acknowledged 
his  lordship  over  the  nation;  and  they  supposed  they  were 
serving  the  same  god  whom  the  Israelite  clans  had  brought 
into  the  country  at  the  time  of  the  original  settlement  in  the 
Judges  period.  But  the  kings  and  official  classes  identified 
Yahweh  with  the  standpoint  of  civilization  as  contrasted  with 
the  standpoint  of  the  primitive  clan.  Now,  civilization  is  a 
good  thing  in  itself;  but  if  its  benefits  are  overbalanced  by  its 
abuses,  it  becomes  an  evil.  If  it  ignore  the  welfare  of  the 
humbler  social  classes,  and  provide  only  for  the  happiness  of  a 
small,  wealthy,  upper  class,  then  civilization  menaces  the 
higher  interests  of  mankind. 

This  was  the  disease  that  afflicted  the  Egyptians,  Babylo- 
nians, Assyrians,  Phoenicians,  and  other  advanced  peoples  of 
the  oriental  world.  Their  social  polity  was  untempered  by  the 
brotherhood  of  the  primitive  clan.  They  smothered  the  ideas 
of  justice  that  prevail  among  the  backward  nomadic  peoples. 
Their  slaves  consisted  not  only  of  alien  bondmen,  but  of  the 
native-born  peasantry.1  And  while  the  great  gods  of  the  mighty 
Semitic  empires  were  probably  once  the  divinities  of  simple 
desert  clansmen,  these  gods  had  been  long  ago  transformed,  or 
metamorphosed,  into  the  deities  of  settled  civilization,  identi- 
fied with  the  customs,  laws,  and  morals  of  commercial  society. 
It  was  in  the  interest  of  this  tendency  that  the  official  and 
wealthy  classes  of  the  Hebrew  nation  instinctively  threw  the 
weight  of  their  influence.  The  kings  and  officials,  as  a  rule, 
wanted  to  view  the  national  god  Yahweh  in  the  character  of  a 
"civilized"  Semitic  deity,  or  Baal,  having  the  same  nature  as 
the  Baals  of  the  wealthy  Phoenicians,  or  the  Baals  inherited  by 
the  Hebrews  from  the  Amorite  side  of  their  ancestry. 

In  the  case  of  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  and  other  civilized 

1  Cf .  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt  (New  York,  1905),  p.  491;  Luckenbill,  Temple 
Dociunents  from  the  Cassile  Period  (Chicago,  1907),  p.  12. 


1 76  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

Semites  the  evolution  of  religion  went  parallel,  in  the  long 
run,  to  the  movement  of  society  from  nomadism;  and  the  gods 
became  the  patrons  of  the  legal  usages  favored  by  the  very 
wealthy.  But  the  development  of  Hebrew  nationality,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  was  unlike  the  social  evolution  of  any  other 
ancient  people  (chap,  x,  p.  95).  The  Israelite  invaders  found 
the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  broken  up  into  small  provinces,  and 
worshiping  many  local  Baals.  The  Amorites  had  no  national 
government  and  no  national  god.  As  a  consequence,  it  was 
the  invaders,  and  not  the  earlier  population,  who  supplied  the 
national  politics  and  religion.  Thus  Yahweh,  a  god  of  primi- 
tive mishpat,  was  imposed  with  considerable  abruptness  upon 
a  civilized  people.  The  result  of  this  was  that  the  transforma- 
tion of  Yahweh  into  a  god  of  commercial  civilization  was 
obstructed.  While  the  kings  and  wealthy  classes  wanted  to 
worship  the  national  divinity  in  the  character  of  an  ordinary 
Amorite,  or  "civilized,"  Semitic  Baal,  the  more  backward 
social  classes  persisted  in  connecting  Yahweh  with  the  morality 
of  their  Israelite  ancestors.  Thus  at  last  we  see  that  the  great 
social-religious  issue  in  the  Hebrew  nation  came  to  revolve 
around  the  question  of  the  baalizing  of  Yahweh. 

But  the  process  by  which  the  people  awoke  to  this  fact  was 
gradual  and  painful.  The  human  mind  always  moves  very 
slowly  in  the  perception  of  a  complicated  problem;  and  even 
after  the  facts  of  a  problem  are  visible  to  the  investigator,  it 
is  another  matter  of  difficulty  to  find  the  appropriate  words 
and  phrases  in  which  to  describe  the  situation  so  that  it  will 
be  clear  to  other  minds.  This  was  exactly  the  problem  that 
confronted  the  Hebrew  nation;  and  it  pressed  with  special 
force  on  the  prophets,  the  spokesmen  of  the  national  interests, 
who  were  a  long  time  in  thinking  themselves  clear  with  refer- 
ence to  the  situation.  The  vast  religious  possibilities  inclosed 
within  the  national  experience  revealed  themselves  only  in  a 
very  gradual  way  to  Israel's  thinkers.  The  "insurgent"  school 


MI  SEP  AT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL  FORM          177 

of  prophecy  was  drawn  more  and  more  into  an  attitude  of 
opposition  to  the  kings;  and  one  royal  house  after  another 
was  thrown  violently  down  (I  Kings  11:26-31;  14:1-18; 
16:1-7). 

Following  the  history  once  more  into  the  ninth  century  B.C. 
(900  to  800) ,  it  begins  to  be  apparent  that  we  are  in  the  second 
stage  of  the  Hebrew  conflict.  We  have  already  considered 
this  period  from  the  economic  standpoint  (cf.  p.  144) ;  and  we 
now  take  up  the  religious  phase  of  the  development.  We 
have  seen  that  the  great  prophet  Elijah  comes  forward  as  the 
leading  spokesman  of  this  period.  He  utters  an  awful  curse 
upon  King  Ahab  in  connection  with  the  seizure  of  land  belong- 
ing to  the  peasant  Naboth  (I  Kings  21:17-26).  The  king 
had  been  acting  under  the  influence  of  his  Phoenician  wife, 
Jezebel,  whose  former  home  was  in  the  wealthy,  commercial 
city  of  Sidon.  Her  advent  as  queen  of  Israel  had  been  marked 
by  introduction  of  the  worship  of  the  Baal  of  Sidon  (I  Kings 
16:30-32).  The  religious  complications  of  the  problem  are 
indicated  as  follows  by  Professor  Budde: 

Together  with  Baal-worship,  foreign  despotic  methods  were  creeping 
into  North  Israel,  and  ever  wider  grew  the  chasm  between  the  over- 
refined  and  sensuous  Court  and  the  oppressed  and  impoverished  people 
wrho  must  furnish  it  the  means  for  its  exuberant  luxury.  Palestine  was 
a  small  and  relatively  poor  country,  and  it  must  have  borne  hard  on  its 
people  when  the  king  undertook  to  emulate  the  rich  city-kings  of  the 
Phoenicians.1 

Here,  then,  for  the  first  time,  the  issue  took  on  a  positive, 
concrete  religious  form!  The  acts  of  Ahab,  in  importing  a 
foreign  Baal  cult  and  in  oppressing  an  Israelite  freeman,  struck 
in  with  terrific  force  upon  the  imagination,  and  gave  the 
prophets  a  new  method  of  handling  the  national  problem.  The 
policy  of  Ahab  was  like  an  electric  shock  to  the  nation;  and 

1  Budde,  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Exile  (New  York,  1899),  p.  119;  italics  ours; 
cf.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  Prophets  of  Israel  (London,  1897)^.95;  Kent,  History  of  the 
Hebrew  People  (New  York,  1903),  Vol.  II,  pp.  87,  88. 


178  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

it  suggested  a  clearer  and  more  definite  appeal  to  the  popular 
conscience.  The  national  struggle  now  began  to  be  linked, 
for  the  first  time,  with  the  clash  of  cults.  It  should  be  empha- 
sized that  the  warfare  of  the  national,  Hebrew  Yahweh  against 
"other  gods"  began  as  a  war  against  the  Baal  of  a  near-by 
people.1  It  is  always  easier  to  raise  an  issue  by  fighting  your 
neighbor's  gods  than  it  is  by  fighting  the  gods  of  your  own 
household.  The  dramatic  importation  of  the  foreign,  Phoeni- 
cian Baal  was  necessary  as  a  means  of  ultimately  raising  the 
issue  of  the  local  gods.  In  the  struggle  against  "other  gods" 
it  was  a  matter  of  difficulty  to  begin  with  the  native  Baals 
because  they  were  many,  and  they  confused  the  mind.  But 
the  foreign  Baal  was  one,  and  attention  could  easily  be  centered 
upon  a  strange  cult. 

We  shall  never  know  how  far  the  prophet  Elijah  went  in  his 
opposition  to  other  gods.  He  has  left  us  no  writings  of  his 
own,  as  did  the  literary  prophets  of  the  following  century. 
There  is  no  record  that  he  conducted  any  struggle  against  the 
local  Baal- worship  of  the  Hebrews;  and  he  is  connected 
chiefly  with  the  dramatic  fight  against  the  foreign  Baal. 
Reforms  usually  come  slowly;  and  one  change  at  a  time  seems 
to  have  been  all  that  the  sluggish  public  opinion  of  Israel,  with 
its  dark  underlying  mass  of  crude  religious  ideas,  was  capable 
of  putting  into  effect.  But  Elijah  may  have  been  using  the 
Sidonian  Baal  in  a  statesman-like  way  as  a  means  of  raising 
the  issue  of  the  local  gods  later.  This  conjecture  agrees  with 
the  general  atmosphere  of  the  Elijah  stories;  and  there  is  one 
bit  of  positive  evidence  pointing  in  the  same  direction.  It  is 
said  that  when  Elijah  met  Ahab,  at  the  close  of  the  great 
drouth,  he  cast  the  blame  for  the  dry  season  upon  the  king, 
because  he  had  forsaken  the  commandments  of  Yahweh 

1  The  struggle  in  the  Judges  period  was  different  (see  chap.  xi).  In  that  case, 
it  stood  for  the  military  antagonism  of  two  distinct  peoples;  but  the  memory  of  that 
struggle  was  operative  in  the  minds  of  the  prophets,  as  the  books  of  Judges  and 
Deuteronomy  prove. 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM          179 

and  foUowed  "the  Baals"  (I  Kings  18:18).  The  plural, 
not  the  singular,  form  is  used  here;  and  it  is  preceded  by  the 
definite  article  "the"  (ha-Baal-im) .  Although  Elijah  goes 
on  directly  to  oppose  the  Sidonian  Baal,  this  is  no  proof  that 
he  did  not  have  the  local  Baals  in  mind  as  a  later  object  of 
attack.1 

After  Elijah  protested  against  the  Baal  of  the  Phoenician 
city  of  Sidon,  he  spoke  against  the  Baal  of  the  Philistine  city 
of  Ekron  (II  Kings  1:2,  3,  6,  1 6).  To  the  same  effect,  the 
JE  documents  denounce  the  Baal  of  Peor,  i.e.,  Chemosh,  the 
god  of  Moab,  and  also  the  gods  of  Aramea  (Num.  25 :  i,  2, 3,  5; 
Gen.  35:2).  The  J  and  E  writers  are  shown  by  modern  criti- 
cism to  have  worked  probably  soon  after  the  time  of  Elijah; 
and  it  is  clear  that  in  their  documents  the  religious  point  of 
view,  as  regards  opposition  to  "other  gods,"  is  on  a  level  with 
Elijah's  protest  against  the  Baals  of  Sidon  and  Ekron.  We 
have  now  reached  a  point  in  our  study  where  the  generalization 
may  be  ventured  that  the  Hebrew  struggle  entered  the  second 
stage  by  putting  Yahweh  into  opposition  to  the  border-Baals, 
the  gods  of  neighboring  lands. 

As  a  result  of  the  growing  protest  against  foreign  cults, 
Jehoram,  an  early  successor  of  Ahab  as  king  of  Northern  Israel, 
put  away  an  obelisk,  or  pillar,  that  had  been  used  in  Baal- 
worship  (II  Kings  3:1,  2).  But  the  climax  of  the  campaign 
waged  by  Elijah  and  Elisha  was  the  terrible  revolution  of 
Jehu,  in  which  the  house  of  Ahab  went  down  in  torrents  of 
blood.  We  reproduce  from  Kings  a  passage  bearing  on  this 
awful  change  in  the  government. 

And  Elisha  the  prophet  called  one  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  and 
said  unto  him,  Gird  up  thy  loins,  and  take  this  vial  of  oil  in  thy  hand, 
and  go  to  Ramoth-Gilead.  And  when  thou  comest  thither,  look  out 
there  Jehu  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Nimshi,  and  go  in,  and 

1  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  term  Baalim  refers  to  the  Sidonian  Baal,  in  this 
connection,  as  a  "plural  of  dignity,"  just  as  elohim  is  applied  to  Yahweh;  but  this 
usage,  with  reference  to  a  single  foreign  Baal,  cannot  be  established. 


i8o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

make  him  arise  up  from  among  his  brethren,  and  carry  him  to  an  inner 
chamber.  Then  take  the  vial  of  oil,  and  pour  it  on  his  head,  and  say, 
Thus  saith  Yahweh,  I  have  anointed  thee  king  over  Israel.  Then  open 
the  door,  and  flee,  and  tarry  not.  So  the  young  man,  even  the  young  man 
the  prophet,  went  to  Ramoth-Gilead.  And  when  he  came,  behold,  the 
captains  of  the  host  were  sitting;  and  he  said,  I  have  an  errand  to  thee, 
O  captain.  And  Jehu  said,  Unto  which  of  us  all?  And  he  said,  To 
thee,  O  captain.  And  he  arose,  and  went  into  the  house;  and  he  poured 
the  oil  on  his  head,  and  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  Yahweh,  the  god  of 
Israel,  I  have  anointed  thee  king  over  the  people  of  Yahweh,  even  over 
Israel.  And  thou  shalt  smite  the  house  of  Ahab  thy  master,  that  I 
may  avenge  the  blood  of  my  servants  the  prophets,  and  the  blood  of  all 
the  servants  of  Yahweh,  at  the  hand  of  Jezebel.  For  the  whole  house  of 
Ahab  shall  perish;  and  I  will  cut  off  from  Ahab  every  man-child,  and 
him  that  is  shut  up  and  him  that  is  left  at  large  in  Israel  (II  Kings  9 : 1-8). 

This  bloody  charge  was  carried  out  to  the  letter.  Jehu 
killed  not  only  the  reigning  king  of  Israel,  who  was  one  of  the 
sons  of  Ahab,  but  the  king  of  Judah,  who  was  visiting  the 
northern  monarch  at  that  time;  he  trod  under  foot  the  dead 
body  of  Jezebel,  and  caused  many  of  the  royal  princes  of  both 
kingdoms  to  be  assassinated.  After  this  he  destroyed  all  that 
he  could  find  of  the  priests  and  prophets  of  the  Sidonian  god; 
violently  rooted  the  foreign  Baal- worship  out  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom;  and  then  ascended  the  throne  as  a  legitimate 
sovereign.  "And  Yahweh  said  unto  Jehu,  Because  thou 
hast  executed  well  that  which  is  right  in  mine  eyes,  and  hast 
done  unto  the  house  of  Ahab  according  to  all  that  was  in 
my  heart,  thy  sons  of  the  fourth  generation  shall  sit  on  the 
throne  of  Israel"  (II  Kings  10:30). 

An  incident  connected  with  this  revolution  is  worthy  of 
special  notice:  When  Jehu  was  in  the  midst  of  his  bloody 
work,  he  saw  a  man  whose  name  was  Jehonadab,  the  son  of 
Rechab,  coming  to  meet  him.  Jehu  saluted  this  man,  shook 
hands  with  him,  and  took  him  up  into  the  chariot,  saying, 
"Come  with  me,  and  see  my  zeal  for  Yahweh"  (II  Kings 
10:15-17).  This  incident  seems  to  be  an  isolated  occurrence, 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL  FORM          181 

with  no  essential  relation  to  the  events  of  the  hour.     The 
narrative  gives  no  explicit  reason  for  its  inclusion  in  the  Book 
of  Kings;  and  many  readers  of  the  Bible  have  been  puzzled  by 
the  story  about  Jehonadab  the  son  of  Rechab.     Other  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament,  however,  make  it  possible  for  us  to  see 
this  incident  in  its  true  perspective.     Jehonadab  (or  Jonadab) 
was  the  founder  of  a  primitive  sect  known  as  the  Rechabites, 
named  after  his  father.     The  sect  was  instituted  about  this 
time  as  a  protest  against  the  ideas  and  usages  of  settled, 
oriental  civilization  (Jer.  35:1-19).     The  most  characteristic 
thing  about  these  people  was  their  avoidance  of  private  prop- 
erty in  land.    They  would  do  nothing  which  implied  ownership 
in  the  soil.     They  planted  no  seed,  because  the  sowing  of  seed 
would  make  it  necessary  to  possess  fields;    and  they  drank 
no  wine,  because  the  raising  of  grapes  would  make  it  necessary 
to  own  vineyards.     Perhaps  it  was  the  seizure  of  Naboth's 
vineyard  by  Ahab  that  suggested  their  avoidance  of  landed 
property.     They  may  have  reasoned  that  the  private  holding 
of  land  was  at  the  root  of  all  evil.     By  this  token,  if  you  have 
no  land,  the  kings  and  nobles  can  take  no  land  away  from  you. 
So  the  Rechabites  lived  in  tents,  and  followed  a  semi-nomadic 
life  in  the  open  country,  away  from  contact  with  city  life. 
One  of  the  biblical  genealogies  traces  them  back  to  the  roving 
Kenite    shepherds  of    the  Arabian  desert,  with  whom   the 
Israelites  came  into  covenant  before  the  invasion  of  Canaan 
(I   Chron.   2:55).     Many  names  occur  among  them  which 
include  the  syllable  Yah;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  Rechabites 
were  ardent  champions  of  Yahweh.     They  looked  back  long- 
ingly into  earlier  ages  when  the  primitive,  brotherhood  mishpat 
of  Yahweh  reigned  without  dispute  among  the  clans  of  the 
desert.     The  life  of  these  primitive  tent-dwellers  was  a  protest 
against  the  settled  civilization  of  the  ancient  world;  and  many 
who  did  not  follow  their  way  of  life  shared  their  ideals.     "I 
will  yet  again  make  thee  to  dwell  in  tents,"  wrote  one  of  the 


i82  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

prophets  (Hos.  12:9).  All  these  interesting  considerations 
make  it  plain  why  Jehu,  the  would-be  king,  was  anxious  to  have 
the  leader  of  the  Rechabites  know  about  his  "zeal"  for 
Yahweh;  and  when  Jehonadab  struck  hands  with  Jehu,  and 
entered  the  chariot,  his  action  signified  the  support  of  the 
Rechabites  for  the  usurper. 

A  corresponding  revolution  occurred  a  few  years  later  in 
Judah,  the  Southern  Kingdom.  Athaliah,  the  queen,  a 
daughter  of  Ahab,  was  killed;  the  priest  of  the  Sidonian  Baal 
met  the  same  fate;  and  foreign  Baal-worship  was  rooted  out 
of  Judah  as  it  had  been  out  of  Israel.  In  place  of  Athaliah  was 
installed  the  boy-king  Jehoash  (II  Kings,  chap,  n).1 

The  nature  of  the  religious  development  of  the  Hebrew 
people  comes  before  us  with  increasing  distinctness  and  power 
as  we  study  the  Bible  from  the  sociological  standpoint.  We 
see  that  in  the  second  stage  of  the  great  struggle  the  govern- 
ment was  revolutionized  in  both  Israelite  kingdoms.  The 
political  machinery  of  society  was  now  committed  officially 
to  the  principle  that  no  foreign  Baal-worship  was  to  be  tolerated 
in  Israel.  This  was  a  very  important  step  in  the  process  by 
which  the  Bible  religion  was  gradually  set  apart  from  the 
surrounding  heathenism. 

Nevertheless,  the  struggle  against  the  border-Baals  was  an 
ephemeral  stage  in  the  development.  The  local  gods  inherited 
from  the  Amorites  were  still  standing;  and  if  they  were  not 
eventually  wiped  out,  the  war  against  the  deities  of  near-by 
nations  would  have  been  love's  labor  lost.  For,  so  long  as  the 
native  Baals  of  the  Hebrew  nation  remained,  the  cult  of  Israel 
could  not  become  a  universal,  exclusive  principle;  and  the 
distinctive  religion  of  the  Bible  could  not  be  born. 

1  Up  to  this  time,  the  sequence  of  events  in  the  Southern  Kingdom  with  reference 
to  the  mishpat  struggle  is  not  so  clear  as  it  is  in  the  Northern  Kingdom.  There  is  a 
vague  notice  of  the  putting-away  of  "idols"  by  King  Asa  many  years  before  (I  Kings 
15: 12,  13).  This  is  not  impossible;  and  it  may  be  a  sign  of  the  greater  conservatism 
of  Judah  in  religious  matters  as  compared  with  the  north.  The  evolution  did  not 
necessarily  move  in  a  straight  line. 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL   FORM          183 

The  prophets  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah  are  transition  figures 
in  the  "mishpat"  struggle. — Moving  on  from  the  time  of  Elijah, 
in  the  ninth  century  B.C.,  into  the  following,  or  eighth,  century, 
our  attention  is  at  once  arrested  by  the  Judean,  or  southern, 
school  of  prophecy,  consisting  of  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah.1 
These  men,  as  we  have  already  seen,  were  preoccupied  by  the 
social  struggle;  and  in  common  with  all  the  other  prophets, 
they  laid  heavy  emphasis  upon  "morality"  (p.  148,  supra}. 
But  they  did  not  come  to  terms  with  the  vexed  question 
of  "other  gods."  Micah  says  nothing  about  the  rivalry 
between  Yahweh  and  other  divinities.  Amos  refers  vaguely 
to  "  the  lies  after  which  their  fathers  walked "  (2:4), 
"the  Sin  of  Samaria,"  "the  god  of  Dan,"  and  "the  Way 
of  Beer-sheba"  (8:14).  Isaiah  speaks  incidentally  against 
"idols"  (2:8,  18,  20;  17:8;  30:22;  31:7).  But  the  eighth- 
century  southern  school  of  prophecy  has  nothing  to  say 
about  the  Baals.  These  men  did  not  state  the  problem  of 
their  times  in  that  distinctive  and  final  way  which  at  length 
came  to  characterize  the  Bible.  Although  Amos,  Micah,  and 
Isaiah  were  well  versed  in  mishpat,  they  were  feeling  their  way 
forward;  and  the  Judean  school  of  the  eighth  century  may  be 
viewed  either  as  closing  the  second,  or  as  opening  the  third, 
stage  of  the  great  struggle  that  convulsed  Israel.2 

The  notable  tardiness  of  southern  prophecy  in  taking  up 

1  By  Isaiah  we  mean  the  author  identified  with  the  bulk  of  the  first  thirty-nine 
chapters  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah.    The  remainder  of  Isaiah  is  post-exilic. 

2  No  little  discussion  has  turned  around  the  question  of  the  originality  of  Amos 
and  the  other  literary  prophets.     Some  of  the  earlier  critics  hailed  these  men  as  the 
creators  of  "ethical  monotheism";   but  this  is  a  passing  aberration.    Amos  and  the 
other  literary  prophets  worked  in  view  of  the  foregoing  history  of  the  Hebrews. 
Yahweh  had  been  a  god  of  mishpat  all  along;  and  the  conquests  of  David  had  imperial- 
ized  the  national  deity  as  a  "god  of  gods"  (see  chap  xiv).    Amos  and  his  colleagues 
could  not  possibly  have  supposed  that  they  were  giving  utterance  to  essentially  new 
truths;  and  they  do  not,  in  fact,  betray  any  consciousness  of  novelty  in  their  message. 
This,  however,  does  not  prevent  them  from  unconsciously  adding  to  the  religious 
thought  of  Israel  by  way  of  emphasis  and  inference.     Cf .  Davidson,  Old  Testament 
Theology  (New  York,  1904),  p.  209;  Wallis,  Examination  of  Society,  pp.  126,  162,  163. 


184  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  question  of  local  Baal- worship  is  perhaps  to  be  explained 
by  the  greater  conservatism  and  slowness  of  Judah  in  reli- 
gious matters,  as  contrasted  with  Northern  Israel.  We  have 
already  noticed  that  the  Amorite  mixture  was  mostly  in  the 
north,  while  the  foreign  elements  in  the  south  were  semi- 
nomadic  (chap,  xv,  p.  136).  We  do  not  know  how  far  the  Baal- 
worship  inherited  from  the  Amorites  was  practiced  in  eighth- 
century  Judah;  and  it  may  have  been  known  there  but  little 
in  the  time  of  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah.  Modern  investi- 
gators are  beginning  to  discriminate  between  various  parts 
of  the  country  and  between  different  social  classes  in  the 
same  parts  of  the  land. 

The  Northern  Kingdom  of  Israel  was  of  high  importance  in 
the  development  of  Bible  religion. — "It  was  in  northern  Israel," 
writes  Professor  McCurdy,  "where  agriculture  was  more 
followed  than  in  the  southern  kingdom,  that  Baal- worship 
was  most  insidious  and  virulent."1  Accordingly,  Professor 
Addis,  in  his  work  on  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  points  out 
that  the  semi-nomadic,  or  pastoral,  class  of  society  was  "espe- 
cially prominent  in  Judah,  where  there  is  much  less  arable 
land  than  in  the  central  districts  of  Palestine."2  Speaking 
of  the  north,  Professor  Marti  says:  "The  fertile  lowlands 
proved  to  be  inhabited  by  mighty  spirits  in  far  greater  num- 
bers than  the  barren  uplands,  where  the  nomads  dwelt  in 

tents There  mighty  spirits  were  lords  of  the  land; 

they  were  the  Baals  of  all  these  localities."3  In  harmony 
with  these  writers,  Professor  Kautsch  expresses  himself  as 
follows:  "It  may  be  that  the  complaint  of  Hosea  applied  in 
a  much  larger  measure  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  than  to  that 
of  Judah.  But,  in  any  case,  it  furnishes  a  very  notable  testi- 
mony to  the  tenacity  with  which  the  belief  in  Baal  as  the  god 

1  Jewish  Encyc.,  art.  "Baal." 

2  Addis,  Hebrew  Religion  (London,  1906),  p.  82. 

s  Marti,  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament  (London,  1907),  p.  91. 


MI  SUP  AT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL   FORM          185 

of  the  land  and  the  dispenser  of  its  fruits  persisted  amongst 
a  portion  of  the  people."1 

The  north  was,  indeed,  of  great  importance  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Hebrew  religion.  The  larger  part  of  the  Israelite 
clans  established  themselves  here  at  the  time  of  the  original 
invasion.  It  was  northern  clans  only  that  were  present  at 
the  great  Deborah  battle  (Judg.  5:13-23).  Most  of  the 
judges  were  northern  men.  Here  Samuel  went  from  place 
to  place  on  his  judicial  circuit.  The  Israelite  monarchy  itself 
was  organized  in  this  part  of  the  country;  and  Saul,  the  first 
king,  was  a  northerner.  When  the  north  separated  from 
Judah,  it  retained  the  name  of  Israel.  The  prophets  Elijah 
and  Elisha  started  the  struggle  against  the  foreign  Baals  in 
the  north.  Here,  in  fact,  was  the  great,  pulsating  center  of 
Hebrew  life  until  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  was  destroyed  by 
the  Assyrians.  The  north  was  less  hi  touch  with  the  desert 
than  was  Judah.  It  contained  the  bulk  of  the  walled  cities; 
it  was  furrowed  by  the  paths  of  commerce;  and  thus  it  was 
more  exposed  than  Judah  to  all  the  influences  of  civilization. 

In  the  third  stage  of  the  "mishpat"  struggle,  Yahweh  at  last 
came  into  conflict  with  local  Baalism. — At  the  very  time  when 
the  eighth-century  Judean  school  of  prophecy  was  engaged 
upon  the  social  and  religious  problem,  a  prophetic  star  of  the 
first  magnitude  arose  in  the  Northern  Kingdom.  Hosea  ben 
Beeri  marks  an  advance  upon  Elijah,  upon  the  JE  documents, 
and  upon  the  southern  school  of  the  eighth  century.  His 
ideas  and  language  were  suggested  to  his  very  sensitive 
mind  by  the  prevailing  Baal-worship  in  Ephraim,  and  also  by 
a  harrowing  personal  experience.  A  great  sadness  came  into 
his  home.  He  discovered  that  his  wife  was  unfaithful.  This 
heavy  affliction  gave  to  him  the  figure  of  Israel  playing  the 
"  harlot "  against  Yahweh — committing  "  whoredom  "  by  follow- 
ing the  local  Baals  which  came  from  the  Amorite  side  of  the 

1  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  ext.  vol.,  p.  645;  italics  ours. 


1 86  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

nation's  ancestry.  It  was  through  Hosea  that  these  very 
striking  terms  came  into  the  vocabulary  of  expressions  relating 
to  the  national  conflict.  This  prophet  makes  frequent  use  of 
the  term  "Baal"  (Hos.  2:8,  13,  14-17;  11:1,  2;  13:1).  By 
suggesting  the  idea  of  a  radical  conflict  between  Yahwism  and 
the  native  Baalism  as  an  expression  of  the  entire  mishpat 
struggle,  he  makes  an  advance  upon  his  predecessors  and  con- 
temporaries. A  northern  prophet,  then,  was  the  first  old 
Testament  leader  to  bring  the  local  Baalism  into  the  mish- 
pat struggle;  and  we  have  already  seen  that  the  struggle 
against  foreign  Baalism  commenced  in  the  north  under  Elijah 
in  the  century  before  Hosea. 

Yet  Hosea  did  not  find  language  that  makes  his  idea  per- 
fectly clear,  so  that  one  who  runs  may  read.  He  talked  about 
mishpat  as  Amos  did;  but,  unlike  Amos,  he  also  talked  against 
Baalism.  His  way  of  speaking  does  not,  however,  make  the 
connection  of  the  two  matters  obvious  at  first  glance.  The 
whole  subject  was  "a  new  thing  under  the  sun";  and  the 
problem  was  too  vast  for  one  man  to  accomplish  more  than  a 
fraction  of  the  task  of  stating  it  in  a  clear  way.  Hosea  did 
not  put  the  prophetic  thought  into  its  final  biblical  form. 
His  religious  thought  appears  to  have  been  formed  through 
bitter  personal  experience,  rather  than  by  reflection  upon  the 
problem.  He  is  emotional  rather  than  rational;  and  his  point 
of  view  is  to  be  inferred  from  his  book  as  a  whole,  rather  than 
from  any  single  passage  in  it.  With  Amos,  he  stands  for  the 
poor  and  speaks  in  the  cause  of  mishpat.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  is  greatly  concerned  about  the  local  Baals,  who  scarcely 
figure  in  Amos.  But  while  Hosea  is  at  the  same  time  against 
injustice  and  against  Baalism;  and  while  he  evidently  sees  a 
connection  between  the  two;  he  nowhere  finds  the  words 
and  phrases  that  bring  his  thought  out  clearly.  The  ultimate 
development  of  the  issue  took  place  under  the  ministry  of 
later  prophets. 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL  FORM          187 

Soon  after  the  time  when  Hosea  threw  the  local  Baals 
into  the  Hebrew  struggle,  the  Northern  Kingdom  encoun- 
tered an  overwhelming  catastrophe.  It  was  destroyed  by  the 
Assyrians,  who  carried  away  the  Ephraimite  upper  classes 
into  a  captivity  from  which  they  never  emerged.  Hosea, 
therefore,  was  the  last  northern  prophet. 

After  the  destruction  of  Ephraim,  the  center  of  interest  in 
Hebrew  development  was  transferred  to  Judah,  the  Southern 
Kingdom. — With  the  collapse  of  northern  Israel,  the  entire 
Hebrew  process  contracted  itself  abruptly  into  the  limits  of 
the  Southern  Kingdom;  so  that  we  must  go  on  to  a  study 
of  conditions  in  Judah  in  order  to  reach  the  climax  of  the 
prophetic  movement.  The  struggle  between  parties,  which  had 
been  going  forward  so  long  on  the  broader  stage  of  Hebrew 
life  as  a  whole,  was  now  condensed  within  a  small  territory 
and  the  little  Hebrew  state  passed  through  a  number  of  highly 
interesting  reactions.  First,  the  "Amorite"  influence  was 
in  the  ascendent;  then  the  "Israelite"  influence  would  rule 
for  a  time;  and  so  the  evolutionary  process  went  on,  taking 
up  elements  from  both  parties  in  the  great  struggle. 

The  "Amorite"  reaction  under  King  Manasseh. — After  the 
Judean  prophets  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah  had  passed  away,  a 
great  reaction  against  their  teachings  took  place  under  Manas- 
seh. Their  doctrines  were  officially  repudiated  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Judah.  Now,  for  the  first  time,  the  Book  of  Kings 
mentions  the  practice  of  Amorite  Baalism  in  the  Southern 
Kingdom.  It  is  said  that  King  Manasseh  did  "after  the 
abominations  of  the  nations  whom  Yahweh  cast  out  before  the 
children  of  Israel,"  and  that  "he  reared  up  altars  for  Baal" 
(II  Kings  21:2,  3),  or  "for  the  Baals"  (II  Chron.  33:3). 

The  reaction  was  not  a  mere  matter  of  the  cultus,  or  the 
external  forms  and  objects  of  worship;  for  in  that  age  of  the 
world,  as  we  have  repeatedly  seen,  religion,  politics,  and  law 
were  one  and  the  same.  Baalism  was  the  symbol  of  the 


i88  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

Amorite  standpoint.  "Swearing  by  Baal"  went  along  with 
the  legal  practices  contrary  to  the  earlier  mishpat  of  Yahweh 
(Jer.  12:16).  Accordingly,  the  narrative  in  Kings  goes  on  to 
say  that  the  prophets  of  Yahweh  testified  against  the  king, 
"because  Manasseh,  king  of  Judah,  hath  done  these  abomina- 
tions, and  hath  done  wickedly  above  all  that  the  Amorites 
did  that  were  before  him"  (II  Kings  21:10,  u).  This  pro- 
voked the  government  into  bloody  measures  which  may  be 
compared  to  the  persecution  of  Protestants  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  We  read  that  "Manasseh  shed  innocent  blood 
very  much,  till  he  had  filled  Jerusalem  from  one  end  to  another" 
(II  Kings  21:16;  24:4).  The  memory  of  this  fierce  persecu- 
tion was  vivid  in  the  recollection  of  the  people  when  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  lived;  and  he  probably  refers  to  the  bloodshed  under 
Manasseh  when  he  says,  "Your  own  sword  hath  devoured  your 
prophets  like  a  destroying  lion  "  (Jer.  2 : 30).  Truly,  Jerusalem 
killed  the  prophets,  and  stoned  them  that  were  sent  unto  her 
(Luke  i3:34)-1 

This  persecution,  set  on  foot  in  the  interests  of  Baalism,  was 
an  awful  thing;  but  it  was  no  more  terrible  than  the  bloodshed 
committed  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  at  the  time  of  the  revolution 
of  Jehu,  when  foreign  Baalism  was  driven  out  of  the  land.  Both 
parties  in  the  mishpat  struggle  took  the  same  violent  methods.2 

Manasseh  was  crowned  at  the  irresponsible  age  of  twelve; 

1  Is  it  simply  a  coincidence  that  this  king  was  the  first  and  only  Judean  monarch 
to  bear  a  distinctly  northern  name?     "Manasseh"  was  a  northern  clan,  a  "son  of 
Joseph,"  and  implicated  in  the  Baalism  of  Samaria  (Gen.  48:1;   Amos  6:6;   Judg. 
6:15). 

2  We  have  seen  that  one  of  the  biblical  writers  held  that  Yahweh  himself  set  the 
seal  of  divine  approval  on  the  wholesale  assassination  whereby  the  usurper  Jehu 
gained  the  throne  (p.  180,  supra,  and  II  Kings  10:30).     In  the  same  way,  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy,  speaking  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  enjoins  the  killing  of  all  Israelites  that 
worship  the  Baals  (Deut.,  chap.  13,  and  Exod.  22:20).     It  should  be  said  in  justice, 
however,  that  some  of  the  prophets  learned  to  take  a  higher  view.     Hosea,  for  instance, 
in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  condemned  the  bloodshed  under  Jehu  (Hos.  1:4).     These 
interesting  differences  between  the  Bible  writers  themselves,  in  regard  to  such  a  vital 
matter  as  the  taking  of  human  life,  are  among  the  many  proofs  that  there  was  no 
absolute  authority,  or  law,  which  all  parties  in  the  Hebrew  nation  acknowledged  as 
divinely  binding. 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM          189 

and  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Amorite  policy  connected  with 
his  name  was  due  to  the  king  himself  (II  Kings  21:1).  The 
events  of  Manasseh's  reign  show  that  the  Baal  party  was  in 
the  ascendant  for  the  time  being.  But  we  are  now  to  see  the 
opposite  party  once  more  in  control. 

The  "Israelite"  reaction  under  King  Josiah. — All  social  history 
tends  to  vibrate  between  the  rule  of  different  " interests."  The 
party  that  captures  the  legal  machinery  of  a  nation  is  able  to 
dictate  the  official  program  of  society,  and  thus  to  move  the 
arm  of  the  entire  group.  But  a  movement  in  one  direction 
provokes  a  tendency  toward  the  opposite  extreme,  just  as  a 
pendulum  swings  back  and  forth.  So  the  Amorite  policy  identi- 
fied with  Manasseh  was  at  length  reversed.  An  uprising  of  the 
peasantry  in  the  country  outside  the  capital  put  the  boy  Josiah 
on  the  throne  of  Judah  at  the  early  age  of  eight.  Josiah  "  seems 
to  have  been  made  king  by  a  popular  movement  in  opposition 
to  a  strong  party  at  court."1  This  revolution,  like  earlier 
ones,  was  an  affair  of  blood;  and  it  was  carried  through  by 
"the  people  of  the  land,"  the  am-ha  'ares  (II  Kings  21 : 23,  24). 

The  struggle  of  parties  was  largely  a  contest  between  the 
wealthy  class  in  the  fortified  cities  and  the  peasantry  of  the 
highland  villages.  This  is  in  strict  harmony  with  the  origin 
of  the  Hebrew  nation  itself  at  the  point  of  coalescence  between 
Amorite  city-states  and  Israelite  clans  from  the  Arabian  desert. 
Now,  it  should  be  emphasized  that  social  conditions  in  the 
Southern  Kingdom  prolonged  this  reaction  up  to  the  very  last. 
The  mixture  with  the  Amorites  was  not  so  thorough  in  Judah 
as  it  was  in  Ephraim,  being  mostly  at  such  places  as  Jeru- 
salem, Libnah,  Gibeon,  Beth-shemesh,  Lachish,  and  elsewhere 
on  the  borders  (II  Sam.  5:13;  II  Kings  23:31;  II  Sam.  21:2; 
Judg.  1:33;  II  Kings  14:11;  cf.  Micah  i:i3).2  Up  in  the 

1  H.  P.  Smith,  Old  Testament  History  (New  York,  1903),  p.  260. 

2  Libnah  actually  revolted  from  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Joram  (II  Kings  8:22). 
Lachish  must  have  been  largely  foreign  throughout  the  entire  history  of  Israel.     Cf. 
G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography,  p.  234. 


IQO  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF   THE  BIBLE 

wilder  hill-country  of  Judah,  the  foreign  admixture  was  not 
Amorite  but  semi-nomadic,  being  more  in  accord  with  the 
original  customs  and  ideas  of  the  Israelite  clans  (cf.  p.  136, 
supra).  The  "civilization"  of  Judah  was,  indeed,  more  back- 
ward than  that  of  Ephraim;  and  the  people  and  environment 
were  morevprimitive.  Doubtless  the  peasantry  of  the  south  got 
some  temporary  measure  of  relief  through  the  movement  that 
put  Josiah  on  the  throne;  but  in  view  of  the  testimony  of 
Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah  who  prophesied  in  the  reign  of  this 
king,  and  who  took  the  same  tone  as  Amos,  it  is  clear  that  the 
accession  of  the  eight-year-old  prince  brought  no  permanent 
benefit  for  the  poorer  classes. 

Another  "Amorite"  revolution  takes  place. — Ten  years  after 
the  "people  of  the  land"  had  put  their  candidate  on  the 
southern  throne,  the  powerful  arm  of  the  government  in  Jeru- 
salem was  captured  by  a  force  that  worked  it  in  the  opposite 
direction.  The  entire  machinery  of  Hebrew  religion  was  taken 
suddenly  out  of  the  hands  of  the  country  people,  and  centralized 
in  the  capital  city.  It  is  clear  from  what  followed  that  the 
peasantry  were  taken  by  surprise.  The  highlanders  of  Judah 
had  conducted  the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  little  village  churches, 
or  bamoth,  ever  since  the  time  of  the  Israelite  conquest.  For 
instance,  Absalom  paid  a  vow  to  Yahweh  at  the  church  in 
Hebron,  a  village  in  the  highest  part  of  the  southern  uplands 
(II  Sam.  15 : 7-12).  It  was  near  Hebron,  the  Israelites  piously 
believed,  that  the  patriarch  Abraham  built  an  altar  to  Yahweh 
(Gen.  13 : 18) ;  and  here,  indeed,  according  to  ancient  tradition, 
the  ground  had  been  sanctified  by  a  theophany  in  which  the 
god  of  Israel  had  appeared  to  Abraham  and  told  him  about  the 
wickedness  of  city  life  (Gen.,  chap.  18).  The  entire  clan  to 
which  David's  family  belonged  had  an  annual  reunion  during 
which  they  sacrificed  to  Yahweh  at  the  shrine  of  Beth-lehem 
(I  Sam.  20:6,  28).  Here  Samuel  came  to  worship  at  the  time 
he  selected  the  son  of  Jesse  as  the  future  king  of  Israel  (I  Sam. 


chap.  1 6).  Around  these  village  altars  had  gathered  the  devo- 
tion and  faith  of  the  Hebrew  people  for  hundreds  of  years; 
but  now,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  the  boy-king  Josiah,  the 
local  sanctuaries  were  suddenly  abolished  by  royal  decree! 

There  has  been  a  steady  progress  among  professional 
scholars  toward  a  clearer  understanding  of  this  important 
epoch  in  Hebrew  history.  The  startling  revolution  which 
took  place  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  has  been  the  subject  of  an 
immense  amount  of  discussion  in  modern  times.  On  the  face 
of  the  narrative  hi  Kings,  the  reformation  of  the  cultus  was 
"caused"  by  the  mere  accidental  discovery  of  a  little  roll,  or 
book,  which  was  brought  from  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,  by  a 
priest,  and  put  suddenly  before  the  young  king  (II  Kings 
22:8  ff.).  According  to  the  account,  this  book  was  promptly 
received  as  the  word  of  Yahweh  by  everybody,  from  the  king 
down.  The  contents  of  the  book  are  unknown  to  us,  except 
through  inference;  but  the  revolution  in  the  forms  of  worship, 
which  occurred  at  this  time,  corresponds  in  many  ways  to  our 
present  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  wherein  the  centralization  of 
the  cultus  at  one  place  is  commanded  (Deut.  12:10-14);  and 
it  is  commonly  assumed  that  the  roll  of  writing  brought  to  the 
king  by  the  priest  Hilkiah  was  the  "first  edition"  of  Deuteron- 
omy. It  cannot  be  successfully  disputed  that  such  a  writing 
became  public  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  that  a  change  in  the 
forms  of  worship  took  place  in  some  sort  of  relation  to  it. 
Our  main  fault  lies  in  the  tendency  to  view  this  particular 
crisis  out  of  connection  with  the  rest  of  Hebrew  history. 
Professor  James  Orr,  for  instance,  in  his  work  on  the  religion 
of  the  Bible,  says  that  "investigation  naturally  begins  with  the 
narrative  of  the  finding  of  the '  book  of  the  law'  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Josiah."1  It  is  indeed  natural  for  one 

1  Orr,  The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament  (New  York,  1906),  p.  256.  (Italics  ours.) 
We  have  previously  considered  the  "  Deuteronomic "  revolution  from  our  present 
standpoint  in  a  paper  entitled  "Professor  Orr  and  Higher  Criticism,"  published  in 
the  American  Journal  of  Theology,  April,  1908;  and  also  in  a  paper  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Sociology,  May,  1907. 


192  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

who  has  the  training  and  presuppositions  of  Professor  Orr  to 
look  at  such  a  matter  out  of  relation  to  the  general  movement 
of  Hebrew  history.  He  lightly  accepts  the  statement  that  the 
newly  discovered  book  was  received  as  authoritative  by  "all 
the  people"  (II  Kings,  23:  i  ff.),  and  bases  a  heavy  argument 
on  the  exact  literality  of  the  entire  narrative. 

But  the  revolution  which  occurred  in  the  eighteenth  year  of 
Josiah  takes  its  place,  along  with  other  historical  items,  as  one 
of  the  steps  in  a  process  of  development.  The  leading  modern 
scholars,  in  the  course  of  their  investigation  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic  problem,  have  already  foreshadowed  the  view  that  the 
startling  change  in  the  cultus  under  Josiah  was  really  a  species 
of  counter-reformation.  All  parties  to  the  discussion  assume 
at  least  a  general  correspondence  between  (i)  the  book  found 
by  the  priest  Hilkiah,  (2)  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
(3)  the  cultus  changes  described  in  II  Kings,  chap.  23.  Reason- 
ing on  the  ground  of  this  general  assumption,  Cornill  justly 
observes  that  "Deuteronomy  represents  a  compromise  and 
alliance  between  prophecy  and  priesthood,  which  resulted, 
however,  in  benefiting  the  latter  only."1  Marti  says  that  it 
was  not  the  prophetic  religion,  but  the  priestly  cultus  that 
profited  by  the  reformation.2  Kautsch  declares  that  the 
reform  "remained  for  the  mass  of  the  people  simply  a  royal 
decree  which  showed  its  effects  in  a  variety  of  external  matters, 
but,  so  far  as  inward  disposition  was  concerned,  left  every- 
thing as  before."3  Loisy  writes:  "The  nabis  [prophets]  who 
helped  the  reformation  were  those  rather  who  ....  believed 
in  the  inviolability  of  Zion.  They  were  the  nationalist  and 
optimistic  prophets,  whom  Jeremiah  treated  as  false  prophets, 

1  Cornill,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  (New  York,  1907),  p.  62.     (Italics  ours.) 
3  Marti,  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament  (London,  1907),  p.  189. 

3  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  ext.  vol.,  p.  700.  (Italics  ours.)  Even  Driver, 
with  his  characteristic  reserve,  says  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  has  greater 
sympathy  with  priestly  institutions  than  the  prophets  generally  (Commentary  on 
Deuteronomy  [New  York,  1906],  p.  xxx). 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM          193 

although  they  might  be  as  sincere  as  himself  in  their  con- 
victions."1 

These  observations  help  us  to  grasp  the  essential  meaning 
of  the  revolution  which  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  As 
a  rule,  the  great  insurgent  prophets  had  not  been  friendly  to 
the  priesthood  and  the  mere  external  forms  of  religion.  The 
dispute  at  Bethel,  between  the  prophet  Amos  and  the  priest 
Amaziah  typifies  the  situation  (Amos  7:10-17).  The  priests 
were  appointed  by  the  kings;  and  they  were  consequently 
the  creatures  of  the  wealthy  official  classes.  The  centraliza- 
tion of  worship  at  Jerusalem  was  a  victory  for  the  priests,  the 
scribes,  and  the  city  party  in  general.  It  foreshadowed  the 
rise  of  Judaism.  The  great  reformation  of  Josiah  indeed 
brought  the  Hebrew  cultus  into  a  form  something  like  that 
which  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  period,  when  the  Jews 
held  that  in  Jerusalem  was  the  place  where  men  ought  to 
worship  (John  4:20,  etc.).  In  the  time  of  Jesus,  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  was  popularly  regarded  as  the  one  legitimate 
place  of  sacrifice  for  Israel;  and  the  great  mass  of  the  people 
were  under  the  rule  of  aristocratic  priests  and  scribes.  The 
aristocratic  ideal  of  the  "Amorite  counter-reformation"  is 
explicitly  declared  hi  a  late,  Deuteronomic  passage  inserted 
in  the  Book  of  Samuel:  "And  I  will  raise  me  up  a  faithful 

priest And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  one  that 

is  left  in  thine  house  shall  come  and  bow  down  to  him  for  a  piece 
of  silver  and  a  loaf  of  bread,  and  shall  say,  Put  me,  I  pray  thee, 
into  one  of  the  priest's  offices,  that  I  may  eat  a  morsel  of 
bread"  (I  Sam.  2:35,  36).  Such  was  the  exalted  place  which 
the  priesthood  eventually  took  as  a  result  of  the  centraliza- 
tion of  the  cultus  at  the  capital.2  The  boy-monarch,  without 
realizing  the  nature  of  the  forces  that  moved  him,  seems  to 

1  Loisy,  The  Religion  of  Israel  (New  York,  1910),  p.  188. 

3  Of  course,  the  insignificant  priests  of  the  village  altars  were  not  benefited  by 
this  revolution  (II  Kings  23:9). 


i94  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  "Amorite"  party;  and  the 
pendulum  had  completed  another  swing. 

History  was  now  pressing  hard  upon  the  Hebrew  people. 
The  Northern  Kingdom  was  already  blotted  out  of  existence— 
a  ghostly  memory;  and  the  Southern  Kingdom  was  becoming 
more  and  more  involved  with  the  great  world-powers  of  oriental 
civilization.  About  fifteen  years  after  the  reform  of  the  cul- 
tus,  Josiah  was  killed  in  a  battle  with  the  Egyptians  at  Megiddo 
(II  Kings  23:29). 

"Israelite"  reaction  again. — Aroused  once  more  to  common 
action,  the  "people  of  the  land"  asserted  themselves  again. 
Passing  over  the  "crown  prince,"  Eliakim,  the  eldest  son  of 
Josiah,  the  people  chose  as  king  another  son,  Shallum,  who 
assumed  the  crown  under  the  name  Jehoahaz  (II  Kings  23:30; 
Jer.  22:11;  I  Chron.  3:15).  The  popular  triumph  was  very 
brief.  The  new  king  had  reigned  only  twelve  weeks  when  the 
pendulum  swung  violently  back. 

The  "Amorites"  return  to  power,  upheld  first  by  the  Egyptians 
and  then  by  the  Babylonians. — The  popular  sovereignty  implied 
in  passing  over  the  crown  prince  Eliakim  could  not  be  tolerated 
by  the  Egyptian  emperor.  So  he  deposed  the  people's  choice, 
and  put  the  crown  prince  on  the  throne,  changing  his  name 
from  Eliakim  to  Jehoiakim.  A  heavy  tax  was  laid  on  the 
"people  of  the  land,"  who  were  awed  into  submission  (II 
Kings  23:33-35).  Judah  had  now  become  the  football  of 
the  world-powers.  In  a  few  years  the  disposition  of  inter- 
national politics  underwent  a  great  change.  The  Egyptians 
were  defeated  by  the  Babylonians;  and  King  Jehoiakim,  the 
creature  of  the  Egyptian  emperor,  transferred  his  allegiance  to 
Nebuchadrezzar,  the  emperor  of  Babylon.  It  was  to  be 
expected  that  Jehoiakim,  ruling  by  grace  of  these  foreign 
masters,  would  be  a  man  of  no  popular  sympathy.  Such  a 
monarch,  being  supported  by  the  most  ancient  commercial 
civilizations  of  the  eastern  world,  naturally  took  the  civilized, 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM          195 

"  Amorite"  standpoint  rather  than  the  more  primitive  Israelite 
point  of  view ;  and  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  the  insurgent 
prophet  Jeremiah  preached  fiercely  against  him  as  an  oppressor 
(Jer.  22:13-19). 

We  have  gone  into  historical  details  rather  freely  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  clearing  up  the  political  and  geographical 
background  of  the  mishpat  struggle  in  its  final  and  most 
important  stage;  and  we  now  turn  once  more  away  from 
external  events  to  study  the  evolution  of  ideas. 

Jeremiah  and  other  Judean  writers,  having  local  Baalism 
chiefly  in  view,  at  last  identified  the  worship  of  "other  gods"  with 
opposition  to  the  "mishpat"  of  Yahweh. — After  Hosea,  who  raised 
the  issue  of  local  Baalism  without  stating  it  in  compact  and 
logical  form,  the  next  great  figure  to  come  into  notice  was 
the  prophet  Jeremiah.  This  interesting  champion  of  Yahweh 
came  from  the  little  country  village  of  Anathoth,  "in  the  land 
of  Benjamin,"  several  miles  north  of  Jerusalem  (Jer.  1:1; 
32:8).  Like  Amos  and  other  insurgent  prophets,  Jeremiah 
represented  the  standpoint  of  the  peasantry.  The  land  of 
Benjamin  lay  a  little  to  the  north  of  Judah.  On  its  western 
border  was  the  once  Amorite  city  of  Gibeon;  while  the  once 
Amorite  Jerusalem  stood  on  the  southern  border.  Jeremiah's 
home  influences  were  such  as  to  give  him  a  close  insight 
into  the  needs  of  the  peasantry;  and  he  was  not  so  remote 
as  Amos  from  the  central  currents  of  "civilization."  After 
Jeremiah  began  to  preach,  he  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  in 
Jerusalem  itself.  Here  were  most  of  the  wealthy  officials 
whom  he  wanted  to  influence;  and  hither  came  crowds  of 
people  out  of  the  villages  and  cities  of  Judah  on  matters  of 
business,  politics,  and  law. 

Jeremiah  was  at  once  the  heir  of  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah, 
in  the  south,  and  of  Elijah  and  Hosea,  in  the  north.  While 
the  substance  of  his  message  is  common  to  all  the  prophets, 
he  has  an  individuality  of  his  own.  His  remarkable  emphasis 


ig6  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

upon  the  Baals  was  taken  from  Hosea;  but  Hosea  handled 
the  native  Amorite  element  in  the  Hebrew  cult  like  an  ama- 
teur when  compared  with  his  follower  in  the  south.  Jere- 
miah is  the  first  of  the  Judean  prophets  to  work  the  local 
Hebrew  Baal-worship  over  into  the  terms  of  the  mishpat 
struggle.  This  outcome  was  in  harmony  with  the  logic  of 
the  entire  conflict,  from  the  beginning  of  the  struggle  in  the 
revolts  of  the  peasantry  against  David  and  Solomon.  The 
Baals  were  identified  by  immemorial  usage  with  the  stand- 
point of  oriental  civilization;  they  were  the  divine  symbols 
and  representatives  of  settled  commercial  and  agricultural 
society.  But  from  the  time  when  the  Israelite  invasion  rolled 
in  from  the  desert,  a  large  part  of  the  nation  identified  Yahweh 
with  the  law  and  morals  of  a  more  primitive  social  state. 
The  conflict  of  standpoints  worked  out  all  through  Hebrew 
life.  The  half -nomadic  highlanders  in  Judah  were  even  more 
backward  than  the  northern  peasantry;  and  as  a  result,  the 
distinction  between  social  classes  was  more  vivid  and  the 
conflict  of  standpoints  more  glaring  in  the  Southern  Kingdom 
than  anywhere  else  in  Israel.  The  religion  of  the  Hebrews 
reached  its  final  development  in  the  south.  Judean  prophetic 
writers  formulated  the  Bible  problem  in  those  peculiar  com- 
binations of  words  and  phrases  that  have  moved  the  mind  of 
subsequent  generations  all  over  the  world.  Verily,  it  was  by 
no  accident  that  instruction  went  forth  from  Zion,  and  the 
word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem  (Isa.  2:3;  Mic.  4 : 2).1 

Jeremiah  carried  the  Hosean  figure  of  Baalism  to  its  logical 
issue  as  a  definite,  explicit  symbol  of  opposition  to  the  mish- 
pat of  Yahweh.  It  was  through  Jeremiah  and  the  Deutero- 
nomic  school  of  writers  that  the  social  struggle  at  last  found 
expression  in  terms  of  rivalry  between  the  local  cults  of  the 
Hebrews  themselves.  When  Jeremiah  denounces  the  wor- 

1  Concerning  the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries,  Professor  Guthe  writes :  "  The 
old  antitheses  remained;  but  they  had  become  subtler  and  more  profoundly  appre- 
hended"— Encyc,  Biblica,  col.  3867.  (Italics  ours.) 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM          197 

ship  of  "other  gods,"  it  is  primarily  the  local  Baals  that  he 
has  in  mind  as  dreadful  examples  ( Jer.  2:23;  7:9;  9:14;  11:13, 
cf.  3:24;  11:17;  12:16;  19:5;  23:13;  32:35).  Over  and  over 
again,  he  condemns,  the  Baal-worship  going  on  around  him. 
In  order  to  make  as  clear  as  possible  the  function  which 
the  Amorite  part  of  the  Hebrew  cultus  played  in  the  devel- 
opment of  Bible  religion,  a  simile  may  be  employed  here : 
When  a  lever  is  used  for  prying  an  object  loose,  it  has 
to  be  supported  upon  something.  The  means  of  support  is 
called  a  "fulcrum."  Now,  the  native  Baal-principle  in  the 
early  religion  of  Israel  was  the  "fulcrum"  used  in  detaching 
the  Hebrews  from  the  worship  of  "other  gods."  The  con- 
flict between  the  moral  standpoints  inherited  from  the  Israel- 
ites and  Amorites  was  at  last  viewed  as  a  rivalry  between 
Yahweh  and  Baal.  The  moral  struggle  was  figured  as  a  cult 
war.  Thus  we  come  back  to  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  people 
at  the  point  of  coalescence  between  Amorite  Baal-worshipers 
and  Israelite  worshipers  of  Yahweh. 

Holding  these  considerations  in  mind,  let  us  glance  at  the 
writings  of  Jeremiah  as  they  bear  on  this  point.  Having  the 
local  Baal-worship  chiefly  in  view,  the  last  great  prophet 
before  the  Babylonian  exile  makes  "other  gods"  the  definite, 
explicit  symbols  of  all  that  the  insurgent  prophets  abhor. 
This  evil  people,  who  refuse  to  hear  the  words  of  Yahweh, 
are  gone  after  other  gods  (13 : 10).  They  have  forsaken  Yah- 
weh— and  walked  after  other  gods:  forsaken  Yahweh — and 
have  not  kept  his  law  (16:11).  Walking  after  other  gods 
becomes  the  symbol,  or  figure,  for  breaking  the  law  of  Yah- 
weh as  declared  for  centuries  by  his  prophets.  Yahweh  will 
utter  his  mishpat  against  the  people  in  regard  to  all  their 
wickedness,  in  that  they  have  forsaken  him  and  burned  incense 
to  other  gods  (i :  16).  Thus,  the  native  Hebrew  Baal-worship, 
representing  the  Amorite  ancestry  of  the  people,  serves  as  the 
foil  against  which  prophecy  throws  its  heaviest  force  in  the 


IQ8  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

third  stage  of  the  mishpat  struggle.  The  great  conflict  of 
legal  and  moral  ideas  was  at  last  put  into  its  characteristic 
religious  terms. 

The  Deuteronomic  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  began  to  take 
form  at  this  time. — The  method  thus  painfully  discovered  by  the 
religious  thinkers  of  Israel  spread  itself  out  over  Hebrew 
literature  as  the  Old  Testament  came  into  being.  The  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  is  a  Judean  product,  issuing  from  the  times 
of  Jeremiah,  but  with  many  later  additions.  As  modern 
critical  study  has  proved,  a  primitive  Deuteronomic  work, 
in  the  form  of  the  "Hilkiah-book,"  was  the  first  Old  Testa- 
ment writing  to  be  officially  adopted  as  "canonical  Scripture." 
We  have  already  seen  that  the  leading  feature  of  the  Hilkiah- 
book  was  apparently  the  centralization  of  the  cultus  in  the 
hands  of  the  city  party.  Whatever  the  nature  and  extent  of 
this  "counter-revolution"  may  have  been,  it  left  the  local 
Baal- worship  standing,  as  the  testimony  of  Jeremiah  and 
Zephaniah  shows;  and  the  present  expanded  Book  of  Deu- 
teronomy ranges  itself  alongside  of  Jeremiah  in  treating  the 
moral  struggle  as  a  contest  between  the  native  divinities, 
regarded  as  two  distinct  principles.  It  is  the  Baal-worship 
derived  from  the  Amorites  that  is  chiefly  referred  to  by 
Deuteronomy  (7:1-5,  25;  12:2-4;  I2:3o;  20:16-18;  31:16). 
The  worship  of  the  Baals  is  equated,  or  identified,  with  every- 
thing that  the  prophets  abhor.  Thus  the  people  shall  not 
turn  aside  from  any  of  the  words  of  Yahweh  to  go  after  "other 
gods"  (Deut.  28:14).  In  another  passage,  of  remarkable 
force,  walking  after  other  gods  is  declared  to  be  the  precise 
opposite  of  observing  the  commandments,  statutes,  and 
ordinances  (mishpatim)  of  Yahweh  (30:16,  17).  It  is  inter- 
esting to  notice  that,  in  these  general  passages,  mishpat 
means  the  same  as  hukkoth  (statutes),  toroth  (instructions,  or 
laws),  miswoth  (commands),  and  eduth  (testimonies).1 

1  Cf.  I  Sam.  30:25,  where  David  made  a  certain  rule  "a  hok  and  a  mishpat  for 
Israel." 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES  FINAL  FORM          199 

The  Deuteronomic  writers  now  turned  back  to  the  old 
records  and  stories  of  past  history,  and,  as  they  themselves 
declare,  worked  a  part  of  this  ancient  material  up  into  our 
present  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  (cf.  chap,  iv, 
"The  Making  of  the  Old  Testament") .  We  have  so  frequently 
spoken  of  the  Deuteronomic  editors  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings  that  this  phase  of  the  subject  will  present  no  difficulty. 
The  method  which  is  now  before  us  works  automatically 
forward  in  the  development  of  the  Bible.  The  Deuteronomists 
took  pleasure  in  reading  and  studying  the  old  narratives  of 
the  Judges  period.  In  these  fascinating  stories  about  the 
first  epoch  of  the  Israelite  invasion  and  settlement  of  Canaan, 
the  Israelites  and  Amorites  were  as  yet  apart  from  each  other; 
so  that  the  deities  of  these  two  peoples  (Yahweh  and  the 
Baals)  were  distinct,  sharply  contrasted  gods.  The  Deutero- 
nomic school  made  very  impressive  use  of  these  old  narratives, 
and  worked  them  up  into  a  remarkable  production,  the 
"Book  of  Judges"  (cf.  chap,  xi,  supra).  The  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  are  likewise  great  monuments  of  Deuteronomic 
industry.  We  read  in  Kings  that  if  the  people  do  not  observe 
the  mishpat,  etc.,  of  Yahweh,  but  shall  go  and  serve  "other 
gods,"  then  Israel  shall  be  cut  off  and  cast  aside  (I  Kings 
9 : 4,  6,  7).  The  case  here  stands  exactly  as  it  does  in  Jeremiah 
and  in  Deuteronomy.  Worship  of  other  gods  is  the  con- 
venient symbol,  or  figure,  for  breaking  the  mishpat  of  Yahweh. 
The  entire  situation  is  finally  summed  up,  from  the  Deutero- 
nomic standpoint,  in  the  concluding  part  of  Kings  as  follows: 
The  children  of  Israel  feared  "other  gods";  that  is,  they 
walked  in  the  statutes  (hukkotti)  of  the  nations  whom  Yahweh 
cast  out  before  Israel  (the  Amorites).  Therefore  Judah  and 
Israel  were  also  cast  out,  and  carried  away  into  exile  (II  Kings 

17:7,8,  19,  20,  35,37). 

After  the  Amorite  Baal-worship  had  been  seized  upon 
for  central  emphasis,  and  carried  over  into  the  midst  of  the 


200  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

struggle,  the  way  was  open  for  a  broader  and  more  philosophi- 
cal view  of  the  entire  situation.  Opposition  to  the  mishpat  of 
Yahweh  could  now  be  spoken  of  either  as  following  the  gods 
of  the  Amorites,  or  as  walking  in  the  mishpat  of  the  Amorites, 
precisely  as  in  the  last  citation  from  Kings.  It  now  began  to 
be  seen  that  the  Hebrew  struggle  was  a  reaction  between  two 
different  ideas  of  mishpat,  growing  out  of  the  double  ancestry 
of  the  Hebrew  nation.  This  way  of  putting  the  case  would 
have  been  impossible  to  the  prophets  of  the  eighth-century 
Judean  school.  To  Amos,  the  struggle  was  not  between  two 
different  ideas  of  what  mishpat  was.  He  would  not  so  dignify 
the  claims  of  his  opponents.  To  the  simple  shepherd  from 
southern  Judah,  the  conflict  was  between  the  one,  genuine 
mishpat  of  Yahweh,  on  the  one  side,  and  "wormwood,"  on  the 
other  side  (Amos  5:7;  6:12).  According  to  Micah,  the  official 
classes  were  ignorant  of  mishpat  (3:1-2).  And  Isaiah, 
in  words  like  those  of  Amos,  declared  that  the  rulers  turned 
sweetness  into  bitterness,  light  into  darkness  (5:20).  The 
earlier  prophets  could  not  express  themselves  more  clearly 
than  this;  and  so  they  were  not  conclusive.  They  were 
fighters  dealing  with  a  situation  whose  merits  and  possibilities 
they  could  not  wholly  see.  But  by  the  time  of  Jeremiah 
and  the  Deuteronomists,  the  intellectual  outlook  of  the 
Hebrew  mind  was  clearer;  and  the  nature  of  Hebrew  history 
began  to  be  a  little  better  understood.  Of  course,  the  Bible 
nowhere  presents  a  modern  scientific  statement  of  the  case; 
but  the  later  prophets  began  to  be  conscious,  as  the  earlier 
ones  were  not,  that  the  force  dragging  the  nation  down  to 
ruin  was  Amorite  law  and  morals  persisting  among  the  people.1 
Jeremiah  and  the  Deuteronomists  had  before  their  eyes  the 

1  This  explains  why  the  earlier  prophets  (such  as  Amos,  for  instance)  never  say, 
"Do  not  do  as  the  Amorites  do."  For  if  the  earlier  prophets  thought  about  the  race 
matter  at  all,  they  pictured  the  Amorites  as  destroyed  root  and  branch  (cf.  Amos 
2:9  f.).  They  did  not  realize  that  the  Amorite  blood  and  customs  continued  to  exist 
under  the  name  of  Israel.  This  paradox  complicates  the  situation  for  ancient  and 
modern  thinkers  alike. 


MISHPAT  STRUGGLE  TAKES   FINAL  FORM          201 

spectacle  of  aliens  who  had  been  brought  into  the  territory 
of  Northern  Israel  from  other  parts  of  the  Semitic  world,  whose 
mishpat  (like  that  of  the  Amorites)  was  contrary  to  the  ancient 
usages  of  the  Yahweh  cult  (II  Kings  17 : 24-41).  History  was 
always  doing  something  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  prophets; 
and  this  object-lesson  could  not  fail  to  be  impressive  and 
enlightening.1 

The  Deuteronomic  attitude  toward  the  Amorites  had  a 
marked  influence  on  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  who  wrote  in  Baby- 
lonia during  the  Captivity:  "Cause  Jerusalem  to  know  her 
abominations."  "Thine  origin  and  thy  nativity  is  of  the 
land  of  the  Canaanite.  The  Amorite  was  thy  father" 
(16:2-3,  45).  Israel  did  not  do  after  the  mishpat  of  Yahweh, 
but  after  that  of  the  nations  round  about  (11:12);  and  because 
they  did  not  execute  the  mishpat  of  Yahweh,  he  gave  the  people 
mishpat  wherein  they  could  not  live  (20:24,  25).  Continuing 
our  quest  for  the  Deuteronomic  idea,  we  turn  from  Ezekiel 
to  the  "Code  of  Holiness"  which  composes  the  central  part 
of  the  Book  of  Leviticus  (chaps.  17-26).  Here  we  find  the 
same  tone :  Israel  shall  not  do  after  the  doings  of  the  land 
of  Canaan.  They  shall  not  walk  in  the  statutes  (hukkoth)  of 
the  former  inhabitants.  But — they  shall  do  the  mishpat  of 
Yahweh  (Lev.  i8:3~5).2  Finally,  the  Deuteronomic  writers 
go  far  back  into  the  nomadic  era,  and  picture  Yahweh  telling 

1  Exception  may  be  taken  to  this  example  on  the  ground  that  mishpat  in  this 
passage  refers  only  to  ritual  usages.  But  the  notice  explicitly  states  that  the  imported 
aliens  continued  to  worship  other  gods  along  with  Yahweh  (vss.  29,  30),  and  that  they 
did  not  keep  the  hukkim  (masculine  plural  of  hok,  usually  hukkoth),  the  mishpatim,  the 
torah,  and  the  miswah  of  Yahweh  (vs.  37).  Even  on  the  surface,  then,  this  case 
embodies  vastly  more  than  a  mere  contrast  in  ritual  usages;  and  we  should  be  entitled 
to  infer  as  much  in  the  very  nature  of  the  situation. 

3  The  "abominations"  of  the  Amorites  cannot  be  viewed  as  restricted  to  sexual 
impurity  by  the  biblical  writers,  although  this  form  of  sin  is  included  with  the  rest,  as 
one  which  develops  with  excessive  wealth.  The  Book  of  Leviticus  itself,  which  puts 
the  mishpat  of  Yahweh  over  against  that  of  the  Amorites  in  such  a  broad  and  general 
way,  is  careful  to  show  that  the  law  of  Yahweh  includes  all  that  the  pre-exilic  prophets 
had  in  view  (Lev.  19:13-15;  25:35-41).  In  order  to  avoid  overloading  the  text,  we 
have  omitted  the  sex  problem  from  the  argument. 


202  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  patriarch  Abraham  that  his  posterity  shall  inherit  the  land 
of  Canaan  when  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite  is  full  (Gen.  15 : 16). 
In  due  time,  Yahweh  redeems  his  promise;  and  the  Amorites 
are  said  to  have  been  utterly  swept  away  (Josh.  10:40-42; 
11:16-19,  23;  21:43,  44)-  Thus  the  conception  at  length 
emerged  into  view  that  the  struggle  which  convulsed  the 
Hebrew  nation  throughout  its  entire  history  was  a  dramatic 
warfare  conducted  by  Yahweh  himself  against  the  law  and 
morals  identified  with  the  former  inhabitants  of  Canaan. 

The  editorial  point  of  departure  in  the  making  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  condemnation  of  the  Hebrews  for  walking  after  "the 
iniquity  of  the  Amorite." — In  our  study  of  the  making  of  the 
Old  Testament,  we  learned  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Hebrew 
Bible  was  arranged  by  writers  and  editors  who  were  not  con- 
temporary with  the  events  described,  and  who  made  use  of 
many  earlier  documents  which  they  inherited  from  their  fore- 
fathers. In  the  second  place,  we  saw  that  their  object,  or 
purpose,  in  all  this  literary  activity  was  a  moral  one.  The 
writers  of  the  Bible  were  sitting  in  judgment  on  history,  and 
uttering  moral  verdicts  on  the  past.  We  are  now  prepared  to 
see  that  the  men  who  gave  us  the  Old  Testament  did  not  state 
their  moral  views  primarily  in  a  general,  or  abstract,  way. 
Their  ideas  were  formed  on  the  basis  of  the  actual  experience 
through  which  the  Hebrews  had  slowly  passed  in  the  long  course 
of  their  social-religious  development.  The  editorial  point  of 
departure  in  the  making  of  Scripture  is  condemnation  of  the 
Hebrews  for  adopting  Amorite  law  and  morals.1 

1  The  priestly  documents,  which  are  still  later  than  the  Deuteronomic  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  are  preoccupied  with  matters  of  ritual  and  cognate  questions.  Hence 
they  do  not  discuss  the  Amorites,  who  are  sufficiently  treated  of  by  their  predecessors. 
Yet  the  Deuteronomic  attitude  toward  the  former  inhabitants  (like  the  law  of  the 
central  sanctuary)  is  implied  in  the  priestly  documents  as  part  of  the  foundation  upon 
which  they  build.  The  priestly  ritual  is  ordained  for  the  protection  and  conservation 
of  the  prophetic  work. 


CHAPTER  XX 
RELIGIOUS  EFFECT  OF  THE  EXILE 

The  Babylonian  Exile  completed  the  destruction  of  Hebrew 
nationality. — The  ruin  of  Jerusalem  was  the  climax  of  He- 
brew misfortune.  The  prostration  of  the  Southern  Kingdom 
brought  into  awful  relief  the  fact  of  Hebrew  annihilation;  for 
the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  had  been  already  swept  away.  The 
maelstrom  of  world-history  had  swallowed  the  north  Israelites; 
and  now,  far  away  in  Babylonia,  the  exiles  from  Judah  beheld 
with  amazement  the  manners  and  customs  of  a  strange  land. 
The  modern  reader  can  best  picture  to  himself  the  effect  of 
these  things  upon  the  Hebrew  mind  by  putting  himself  in  the 
place  of  the  exiles,  and  imagining  his  own  feelings  if  his  native 
country  were  called  upon  to  go  through  a  similar  experience. 
"By  the  rivers  of  Babylon,  there  we  sat  down.  Yea,  we  wept 
when  we  remembered  Zion.  Upon  the  willows  in  the  midst 
thereof  we  hanged  up  our  harps.  For  there  they  that  led  us 

captive  required  of  us  words  of  song How  shall  we 

sing  Yahweh's  song  in  a  strange  land  ?"  (Ps.  137 : 1-4).  This 
plaintive  wail  has  come  down  to  us  through  the  ages  from  the 
distant  exilic  time;  and  while  it  is  quite  familiar,  we  do  not 
often  pause  to  think  of  the  circumstances  that  inspired  it  and 
the  heart  throbs  that  are  in  it.  The  Captivity  was  the  utter 
prostration  of  Israel.  "We  are  clean  cut  off.  Our  transgres- 
sions and  our  sins  are  upon  us;  and  we  pine  away  in  them. 
How  then  can  we  live  ?  Our  bones  are  dried  up;  and  our  hope 
is  lost"  (Ezek.  33:10;  37:11).  No  social  organization  re- 
mained in  which  Hebrew  life  and  thought  could  express 
itself.  The  people  were  humbled  in  the  dust.  The  walls 
of  Jerusalem  were  broken  down.  The  city  was  destroyed. 
The  Temple  of  Yahweh  stood  in  ruins.  "Zion  is  become  a 

203 


204  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE   BIBLE 

wilderness,  Jerusalem  a  desolation!"  exclaimed  a  writer  in  the 
Exile.  "Our  holy  and  our  beautiful  house,  where  our  fathers 
praised  thee,  is  burned  with  fire;  and  all  our  pleasant  places 
are  laid  waste"  (Isa.  64:io-n).1 

The  Exile  was  an  important  factor  in  the  conversion  of  the 
Hebrews  from  polytheism  to  monotheism. — We  can  hardly 
overestimate  the  importance  of  the  Captivity  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Bible  religion.  The  destruction  of  Hebrew  nationality 
was  a  vindication  of  the  great  insurgent  prophets  who  had 
agonized  and  suffered  in  the  long  centuries  before  the  Exile. 
Baal-worship  had  been  at  length  identified  with  all  that  the 
great  prophets  abhorred;  and  as  the  captives  marched  across 
the  desert,  the  words  of  Jeremiah  rang  ever  more  loudly  in 
their  ears:  "Baalism  brings  evil  to  Israel!"  In  the  light  of 
this  thought  the  Hebrews  learned  to  take  the  calamity  of 
the  Exile  as  a  vindication  of  the  prophets.  And  the  same 
events  that  justified  one  school  of  prophecy  discredited  the 
opposing  school.  "Where  now  are  your  prophets  that  prophe- 
sied unto  you,  saying,  The  king  of  Babylon  shall  not  come 
against  you,  nor  against  this  land?"  (Jer.  37:19).  The 
prophets  who  taught  the  people  to  swear  by  the  name  of 
Baal,  and  who  said,  "Peace,  peace;  no  evil  shall  come  upon 
us" — these  men  were  forever  silenced  by  the  majestic  march 
of  history.  "Thy  prophets  have  seen  for  thee  false  and 
foolish  visions;  and  they  have  not  uncovered  thine  iniquity 
to  bring  back  thy  captivity,  but  have  seen  for  thee  false 
oracles  and  causes  of  banishment"  (Lam.  2:14).  Thus  the 
"regular"  prophets  came  to  be  branded  as  "false,"  while 
Amos  and  his  class  rose  to  the  dignity  of  "true"  prophets. 
Through  these  heart-shattering  experiences,  the  Baals  and 
all  other  gods  beside  Yahweh  were  at  last  thrown  aside;  and 
the  exclusive  worship  of  the  one  morally  "true"  God  gained 
its  victorious  ascendency  over  the  Hebrew  mind. 

1  This  passage  comes  from  the  late  exilic,  or   post-exilic,  part  of  the  Book  of 
Isaiah  (chaps.  40-66). 


RELIGIOUS  EFFECT  OF  THE  EXILE  205 

The  exiles  were  not  carried  away  all  at  once,  but  in  two 
bands,  and  at  two  different  times  about  ten  years  apart. 
When  the  first  band  was  deported,  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
was  left  as  yet  untouched,  under  a  native  king,  Zedekiah, 
who  reigned  by  appointment  of  the  Babylonians  (II  Kings, 
chap.  24).  In  this  first  band  of  captives  there  was  a  man  who 
was  destined  to  become  famous,  the  prophet  Ezekiel.  When 
Ezekiel  began  to  prophesy  to  the  captives  in  Babylonia,  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  was  yet  standing;  and  the  last  great  calamity 
had  not  fallen  on  the  home  land. 

The  earlier  part  of  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  has  much  to  say 
about  the  wickedness  and  the  impending  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  This  remarkable  prophet  of  the  Captivity  con- 
demns the  same  sins  against  which  the  insurgent  prophets 
declaimed — injustice  and  polytheism  (Ezek.  22 :  i-io;  8:1-17.) 
The  capital  must  soon  fall.  The  God  of  righteousness  and 
purity  can  abide  no  longer  in  the  corrupt  city  of  Jerusalem. 
This  thought  is  emphasized  with  startling  effect  in  Ezekiel's 
awful  vision  of  Yahweh  in  a  terrible  fiery  chariot  (Ezek.  i :  4  ff.). 
The  "Glory  of  Yahweh"  is  outraged  by  the  abominations 
committed  in  its  presence  at  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.  The 
climax  comes  when  the  dreadful  chariot  rises  grandly  from  the 
city,  emitting  thunders  and  lightnings,  and  forsakes  the  Holy 
Land!  Ezekiel's  peculiar  vision  enforced  the  moral  lesson  of 
Israel's  history  (Ezek.  9:3;  10:4-19;  11:22-24).  Other  proph- 
ets opposed  him;  but  he  warned  the  people  against  them. 
At  last  the  Babylonian  king  laid  siege  to  Jerusalem  and  ruined 
the  city.  Ezekiel  was  vindicated  and  the  other  prophets  were 
silenced  (II  Kings,  chap.  25;  Ezek.,  chap.  13;  cf.  24:1). 

The  Captivity  gave  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews  a  world- 
perspective. — The  prophets  before  the  Exile  were  so  much  taken 
up  with  questions  close  at  hand  that  they  did  not  spend  much 
time  upon  the  broader  problem  of  Hebrew  history  as  a  whole. 
The  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  Israel's  experience,  and  the 


2o6  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

place  of  the  nation  in  the  history  of  the  world  at  large,  was 
hardly  raised  before  the  Exile.  Jeremiah  hinted  that  Jerusalem 
should  be  the  gathering-place  of  the  nations,  and  that  the 
peoples  of  the  earth  should  bless  themselves  in  Yahweh  (Jer. 
3:17;  4:2).'  The  nations  were  moved  about  by  the  will  of 
Yahweh  (Amos  9:7).  He  brought  the  Assyrians  against 
Ephraim  as  the  instruments  of  divine  retribution  (Isa.  8:7-8). 
Yet  the  earlier  prophets  were  so  close  to  Hebrew  history  that 
they  did  not  get  a  wide  outlook  upon  it;  and  so  they  did  not 
clearly  state  a  philosophy  of  it. 

But  the  Exile  made  it  possible  to  look  at  Hebrew  history  on 
a  broader  background.  With  the  Captivity  there  came  a 
wider  perspective.  New  vistas  of  spiritual  insight  now  opened 
before  the  eyes  of  the  prophets.  It  slowly  became  clear  that 
the  national  experience  had  a  universal  meaning.  So  Ezekiel 
writes:  "Not  for  your  sake  do  I  work,  saith  the  lord  Yahweh. 
....  Be  ashamed  and  confounded  for  your  ways,  O  house 
of  Israel!  I  work  not  for  your  sake,  O  house  of  Israel,  but  for 
my  holy  name1'  (Ezek.  36:22,  32).  Ezekiel's  doctrine  of  the 
name  stands  in  logical  connection  with  his  fiery  celestial 
chariot.  The  God  of  Glory,  who  rides  in  the  center  of  the 
awful  vision  that  haunts  the  prophet,  is  working  forward 
through  the  complex  process  of  world-history  with  a  moral 
purpose. 

The  national  god  of  Israel  at  length  became  the  Redeemer 
of  Mankind. — The  idea  of  God,  steadily  developing  in  response 
to  the  pressure  of  the  social  problem,  was  becoming  more  and 
more  fit  to  stand  at  the  center  of  a  world-religion.  The  Exile 
enlarged  the  spiritual  horizon  of  the  Hebrews,  and  suggested 
new  ideas  to  the  finer  and  more  thoughtful  minds  among  them. 
The  national  downfall  confirmed  the  prophets  in  the  habit  of 
reading  the  events  of  history  in  the  light  of  a  divine  purpose. 

1  A  similar  prediction  is  common  to  the  books  of  Micah  and  Isaiah  (Mic.  4:1-3; 
Isa.  2:2-4);  but  this  may  be  post-exilic. 


RELIGIOUS   EFFECT  OF  THE  EXILE  207 

The  relation  of  Yahweh  to  Israel  was  now  made  subordinate, 
or  incidental,  to  the  larger  salvation  of  the  world. 

Behold  my  Servant,  whom  I  sustain — my  Chosen,  in  whom  my  soul 
delighteth.  I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him.  He  shall  bring  forth 

mishpat  to  the  nations A  cracked  reed  he  shall  not  break,  and 

the  dimly  burning  wick  he  shall  not  extinguish.  He  shall  faithfully 
bring  forth  mishpat.  He  shall  not  fail  nor  be  discouraged  till  he  have 
set  mishpat  in  the  earth;  and  the  isles  shall  wait  for  his  law  (Isa.  42 : 1-4). 

The  mighty  outlines  of  the  gospel  of  redemption  thus  came 
slowly  but  surely  into  view.  Yahweh  will  make  his  holy  name 
known  throughout  all  the  earth,  in  order  that  mankind  shall  be 
redeemed  from  sin,  and  released  from  the  shackles  of  injustice. 
Israel  was  the  instrument  through  which  this  purpose  was  to 
be  accomplished.  Only  thus,  by  deep  and  bitter  experience, 
was  the  human  mind  prepared  to  entertain  the  idea  of  God  as 
a  moral  person  whose  field  of  work  is  all  history.1 

The  conquest  of  Babylonia  by  the  Persians  awoke  the  prophecy 
of  return  from  Captivity. — The  interpretation  of  history  in  the 
light  of  an  overshadowing  divine  plan  is  illustrated  by  the 
remarkable  prophecy  of  Israel's  release  from  Exile.  A  great 
army  from  the  northeast,  led  by  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  was 
descending  upon  Babylon;  and  as  the  mighty  host  rolled 
onward,  a  message  of  cheer  was  given  to  the  captives:  "I  have 
raised  up  one  from  the  north;  and  he  is  come — from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  one  that  calleth  on  my  name.  And  he  shall  come 
upon  rulers  as  upon  mortar,  and  as  the  potter  treadeth  clay. 
Cyrus  [the  king  of  Persia]  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  perform 
all  my  pleasure,  even  saying  of  Jerusalem,  She  shall  be  built; 
and  of  the  temple,  Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid"  (Isa.  41:25; 
44:28).  At  last,  after  many  years,  the  Captivity  is  to  be 
broken;  and  the  exiles  may  return.  "Comfort  ye,  com- 
fort ye  my  people  saith  your  God.  Speak  to  the  heart  of 

1 "  In  the  Exile,  Israel's  religion  had  attained  its  maturity.  Virtually  no  more 
growth  can  be  observed  in  it." — Davidson,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  (New  York, 
1904),  p.  137. 


208 

Jerusalem,  and  cry  unto  her  that  her  time  of  service  is  accom- 
plished, that  her  iniquity  is  pardoned,  that  she  hath  received 
of  Yahweh's  hand  double  for  all  her  sins"  (Isa.  40:1-2;  cf. 
Jer.  1 6 : 18).  At  length  Israel  is  to  return  across  the  wilderness 
to  the  home  land.  The  prophet  speaks  in  a  figurative  way 
about  the  journey  through  the  desert :  '  'The  voice  of  one  that 
crieth,  Prepare  ye  in  the  wilderness  the  way  of  Yahweh! 
Make  level  in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God !  Every  valley 
shall  be  filled  up;  and  every  mountain  and  hill  be  made  low; 
and  the  uneven  shall  be  made  level,  and  the  rough  places 
plain"  (Isa.  40: 3-4). 1 

The  conception  of  Yahweh  as  Redeemer  took  form  around  the 
idea  of  the  "goel." — While  the  biblical  idea  of  God  grew  up  on 
the  lines  of  the  social  process  through  which  the  Hebrew 
nation  passed,  the  God-idea  took  on  its  final  form  around  one 
of  the  most  beautiful  figures  in  Hebrew  life.  The  goel,  btf'3 , 
was  a  man  who  (among  other  offices)  "redeemed,"  or  "bought 
free,"  a  needy  relative  who  had  been  sold  into  slavery  through 
debt  (Levi.  25:48,  49).  The  goel-idea,  was  applied  to  Yahweh 
by  the  later  Old  Testament  prophets.  Yahweh  would  redeem 
Israel  from  the  Captivity  (Jer.  50:33,  34;  Isa.  43:14).  He 
would  redeem  Jerusalem  (Isa.  52:3).  The  tradition  of  a 
dramatic  rescue  from  an  Egyptian  bondage  now  began  to 
take  shape  (Exod.  6:6;  15:13,  etc.).  Yahweh  was  the  Savior 
and  Redeemer  (Isa.  60:16).  He  ransomed  his  people  from 
the  power  of  death  and  the  grave  (Hos.  13:14).  He  also 
redeems  the  individual  from  destruction,  or  "the  pit";  and  he 
executes  mishpat,  or  "judgment,"  for  all  that  are  oppressed 
(Ps.  103:4;  Lam.  3:58).  As  a  compassionate  goel,  Yahweh 
became  the  Redeemer  of  mankind. 

1  We  have  made  selections  indicating  the  drift  and  the  historic  atmosphere  of 
this  remarkable  prophecy;  but  the  opening  chapters  of  the  exilic  Isaiah  should  be 
read  entire  (beginning  at  chap.  40)  in  order  to  get  their  exalting  stimulus. 


CHAPTER   XXI 
THE  JEWISH  CHURCH  AND  THE  TORAH 

In  the  post-exilic  epoch,  Judah  was  reconstituted  under  foreign 
authorities. — On  the  political,  or  secular,  side  of  history,  the 
outstanding  fact  of  the  post-exilic  age  is  the  re-establishment 
of  Judah.1  The  Judeans,  or  "Jews,"  were  the  remnant  of  the 
old  Hebrew,  or  Israelite,  kingdom.  The  characteristic  figure 
in  the  political  rehabilitation  of  Judah  is,  of  course,  Nehemiah. 
This  man  was  a  wealthy  Jew,  attached  to  the  Persian  imperial 
court.  Judah  had  been  already  marked  off  as  a  province  of 
the  empire;  and  Nehemiah  was  one  of  a  succession  of  governors 
appointed  to  rule  it  under  the  authority  of  Persia.  He  is 
identified  with  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  This 
achievement  is  a  fitting  symbol  of  his  relation  to  Judaism; 
for  he  gave  a  strong  impetus  to  the  tendency  to  segregate 
the  Jewish  people  in  distinction  from  the  heathen  peoples  of 
the  ancient  world.  The  following  quotation  gives  an  inter- 
esting glimpse  at  the  reconstructive  process,  and  suggests  the 
economic  and  social  position  of  Nehemiah  and  the  leaders  of 
Judaism. 

From  the  time  that  I  was  appointed  to  be  their  governor  in  the  land 
of  Judah,  from  the  twentieth  year  even  unto  the  two  and  thirtieth  year 
of  Artaxerxes  the  king,  twelve  years,  I  and  my  brethren  have  not  eaten 
the  bread  of  the  governor.  But  the  former  governors  that  were  before 
me  were  chargeable  unto  the  people,  and  took  of  them  bread  and  wine, 
at  the  rate  of  forty  shekels  of  silver.  Yea,  even  their  servants  bare 
rule  over  the  people.  But  so  did  not  I,  because  of  the  fear  of  God. 
Yea,  also  I  continued  in  the  work  of  this  wall.  Neither  bought  we  any 

1  This  chapter  with  those  that  follow,  like  the  rest  of  our  sociological  study,  is 
not  an  investigation  of  details.  For  the  treatment  of  events  it  is  necessary  to  go  to 
the  many  excellent  historical  works  now  available. 

209 


210  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

land.  And  all  my  servants  were  gathered  thither  unto  the  work. 
Moreover,  there  were  at  my  table,  of  the  Jews  and  the  rulers,  a  hundred 
and  fifty  men,  besides  those  that  came  to  us  from  among  the  nations 
that  were  round  about  us.  Now  that  which  was  prepared  for  one  day 
was  one  ox  and  six  choice  sheep.  Also  fowls  were  prepared  for  me;  and 
once  in  ten  days  store  of  all  sorts  of  wine.  Yet  for  all  this  I  demanded 
not  the  bread  of  the  governor,  because  the  bondage  was  heavy  upon 
this  people.  Remember  unto  me,  O  my  God,  for  good,  all  that  I  have 
done  for  this  people  (Neh.  5:14-19). 

The  work  of  Judaism  was  the  consolidation,  or  hardening, 
of  the  prophetic  religion  in  the  habits  of  a  sufficient  number 
of  people  to  make  it  a  permanent  social  force  in  the  world. 
The  reconstituted  Israel  became  "the  Jewish  church";  and 
although  the  Jews  often  lost  sight  of  their  larger  mission,  or 
gave  it  a  grotesque  and  impossible  interpretation,  the  post- 
exilic  history  is  as  full  of  broad  human  meaning  and  service 
as  the  earlier  and  more  creative  times  of  the  great  prophets. 

The  Jews,  like  other  peoples,  misunderstood  their  own 
past. — The  post-exilic  Israelites  imagined  themselves  to  be  of 
"pure,"  or  "unmixed,"  racial  origin.  They  did  not  under- 
stand that  the  Hebrew  kingdom  had  originated  at  the  point 
of  coalescence  between  Israelites  and  Amorites.  The  real 
facts  of  Hebrew  history  and  religion  were  buried  in  a  mass  of 
old  writings  which  only  the  few  had  opportunity  to  examine; 
and  even  these  few  lacked  the  training  necessary  to  interpret 
everything  they  read.  The  majority  of  post-exilic  Jews  were 
so  taken  up  with  the  struggle  for  existence  that  they  had  no 
time  for  careful  study  and  knowledge.  The  most  the  popular 
mind  could  carry  was  a  rough  averaging  of  past  history 
in  the  form  of  tradition.  The  time  before  the  Exile  was  con- 
verted into  an  age  of  supernatural  wonders;  and  Israel  took 
a  new  start  amid  a  world  laboring  under  difficulties  and 
problems  of  its  own. 

The  "Torah,"  or  "Law  of  Moses,"  was  compiled  and  adopted 
after  the  Captivity. — We  have  already  learned  that  the  establish- 


THE  JEWISH  CHURCH  AND  THE   TORAH  211 

ment  of  a  "canonical,"  or  official,  sacred  literature  began 
under  King  Josiah  before  the  Exile.  At  that  time,  the  "first 
edition"  of  Deuteronomy  was  brought  forward  from  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  officially  adopted  through  the 
influence  of  the  party  which  had  obtained  control  of  the  gov- 
ernment (p.  191,  supra).  According  to  the  Deuteronomic 
law,  the  entire  machinery  of  worship  was  to  be  centralized 
in  the  capital  city.  From  this  achievement,  as  a  beginning, 
the  "Law  of  Moses,"  or  "Torah,"  was  prepared  on  the  basis 
of  traditions,  documents,  and  law  codes,  that  had  been 
accumulating  for  many  centuries. 

The  men  who  brought  together  into  a  single  corpus  the 
complicated  material  called  the  "Torah,"  will  never  be 
known.  But  we  have  the  account  of  Ezra,  "the  priest  and 
scribe"  (Ezra  7:21),  a  half-mythical  figure,  who  looms  up 
suddenly  in  the  post-exilic  period  with  the  "Torah"  in  his 
hand.  This  Law,  which  we  may  suppose  to  be  approximately 
our  "Pentateuch,"  was  publicly  adopted  and  acknowledged 
by  the  Jewish  authorities  in  the  age  now  under  consideration 
(Neh.,  chap.  8).  But  it  is  important  to  observe  that  even  the 
Jewish  tradition  itself  admits  that  the  Law  had  no  vogue  before 
the  Exile.  "Our  kings,  our  princes,  our  priests,  and  our  fathers 
did  not  keep  thy  Torah,  nor  hearken  unto  thy  commandments 
and  thy  testimonies  wherewith  thou  didst  testify  against  them 
(Neh.  9:34). 

The  other  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were  prepared  and 
adopted  at  various  times  between  the  Exile  and  the  Christian 
Era. — The  Torah  was  the  nucleus  around  which  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, or  the  Hebrew  Bible,  took  form.  The  times  at  which 
the  other  books  were  written  and  taken  up  into  the  sacred 
literature  are  not  known  to  us;  but  the  indications  are  that 
the  Hebrew  Bible  came  into  existence  very  slowly.  When 
the  Sacred  Canon  was  at  last  completed,  it  was  referred  to, 
not  as  one  book,  but  as  "the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the 


212  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Writings"  (Tor ah,  Nebiim,  u'  Kethubim).  Thus  we  see  that 
the  Old  Testament,  in  the  form  under  which  it  stands  before 
us,  reverses  the  actual  order  of  historical  development,  for  the 
prophets  did  their  work  before  the  Law  was  known;  and  the 
Torah  was  one  of  the  results  of  their  struggle.1 

'Not  until  after  the  Exile  did  the  word  "torah"  acquire  the  modern,  technical 
sense  of  the  ;  Mosaic"  law  (Ezra  7:6  ff.).  On  the  canon,  see  Wildeboer,  Origin  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon  (London,  1895),  pp.  22,  31;  and  Ryle,  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (London,  1904);  chap.  v. 


CHAPTER  XXII 
JUDAISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY 

The  teachings  of  the  insurgent  prophets  now  became  one 
element  in  a  legal  scheme  of  religion. — The  preparation  and 
adoption  of  the  Torah  took  place  after  the  Exile  because  the 
mind  of  Israel  was  now  ready  for  it.  If  the  people  had  not 
been  prepared  for  the  Law  by  the  experiences  of  their  national 
history,  they  would  not  have  accepted  it  in  the  post-exilic 
period.  The  history  of  all  the  nations  of  antiquity  records 
the  growth  of  traditions  which,  in  one  way  or  another,  came  to 
be  accepted  as  authoritative.  Hebrew  life  was  no  departure 
from  this  rule.  In  the  time  before  the  Exile,  two  traditions, 
represented  by  two  opposing  schools  of  prophecy,  battled  for 
legal  recognition  and  status.  In  the  final  issue,  the  Baal 
tradition  was  defeated;  and  the  Yahweh  tradition  became 
"authoritative"  in  the  eyes  of  posterity.  Law  is  not  the 
cause  of  social  evolution;  it  is  rather  a  deposit  of  history,  and 
a  condition  of  subsequent  experience.  The  Mosaic  Law, 
instead  of  being  the  force  that  set  the  peculiar  development  of 
Israel  in  motion,  was  itself  the  product  of  that  evolution. 

To  the  Jews,  the  Torah  was  the  most  sacred  part  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible. — While  the  entire  Old  Testament  was  looked  upon  as 
the  product  of  divine  inspiration,  the  Jews  venerated  the 
Torah  as  the  result  of  a  peculiarly  high  revelation.  In  the 
Law  of  Moses,  God  spoke  with  a  weight  and  an  intensity  not 
found  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Hence  the  books  of 
the  prophets  were  placed  on  a  level  of  inspiration  decidedly 
inferior  to  that  of  the  Torah.  This  appears  to  be  strange  to 
the  modern  Christian  who  has  been  taught  that  the  divine 
quality  attaches  equally  and  uniformly  to  the  entire  Old 

213 


2i4  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Testament.  But  the  Jew  found  nothing  unnatural  or  difficult 
in  such  an  apprehension  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Torah  enthroned  the  priesthood,  and  silenced  the 
prophets. — The  adoption  of  the  Torah  was  a  visible  guaranty 
that  the  law  of  God  was  no  longer  a  subject  of  party  dispute. 
The  conflict  of  rival  schools  of  prophecy  had  ended.  From 
now  on,  the  divine  will  could  not  be  an  open  question,  as  it  had 
been  before  the  Exile.  For  the  commands  of  God  were  now 
crystallized  in  the  form  of  a  book.  Religion  was  made  a  matter 
of  minute  and  carefully  prescribed  rites  and  ceremonies 
designed  to  guard  and  preserve  the  worship  of  God  from  all 
profane  contact.  The  worship,  or  "cultus,"  was  in  charge  of 
administrators,  or  priests.  The  commands  of  God,  being  in 
written  form,  the  scribes  and  priests  were  its  natural  executors 
and  interpreters.  The  practical  effect  of  the  Torah,  therefore, 
was  to  set  the  priestly  class  in  the  very  center  of  Jewish  life. 

Thus  we  see  why  there  was  no  place  for  new  prophets 
among  the  controlling  factors  of  the  Jewish  church.  Prophecy, 
which  was  one  of  the  most  important  forces  in  the  evolution  of 
the  Bible,  was  banished  from  history  by  the  Bible  itself. 
"There  is  no  more  any  prophet!"  exclaims  a  post-exilic  writer, 
whose  words  are  a  commentary  on  this  phase  of  Judaism 

(Ps.  74:9). 

But  while  there  was  no  longer  a  field  for  the  ministry  of 
new  prophets  like  Amos  and  Hosea,  the  work  of  the  pre-exilic 
prophets  was  not  lost.  Their  essential  demands  were  present 
in  the  Torah  itself;  and  their  books,  although  viewed  as  the 
product  of  a  lower  degree  of  inspiration,  were  included  within 
the  Hebrew  Bible.  The  very  insistence  of  the  Jewish  church 
upon  the  exclusive  worship  of  One  God  made  it  impossible 
to  ignore  the  work  of  the  remarkable  men  whose  labors  had 
raised  ethical  monotheism  into  a  living  power  in  the  world. 

The  legal  ritual  did  not  satisfy  the  highest  spiritual  needs,  but  it 
practically  extinguished  idolatry.  It  gave  palpable  expression  to  the 


JUDAISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY  215 

spiritual  nature  of  Jehovah  [Yahweh],  and  around  and  within  the  ritual, 
prophetic  truths  gained  a  hold  of  Israel  such  as  they  had  never  had  before. 
The  book  of  Psalms  is  the  proof  how  much  of  the  highest  religious  truth, 
derived  not  from  the  Law  but  from  the  Prophets,  dwelt  in  the  heart  of 
the  nation,  and  gave  spiritual  substance  to  the  barren  forms  of  the  ritual.1 

Under  Judaism,  Bible  religion  took  the  form  of  an  authoritative 
decree  laid  down  by  an  oriental  sovereign. — As  Jewish  life 
dropped  out  of  touch  with  the  past,  the  pre-exilic  history  of 
the  Hebrews  was  less  and  less  understood.  The  ancient 
writings  remained,  it  is  true;  but  the  scientific  method  of 
historical  research  had  not  yet  been  born.  In  this  atmosphere 
the  Hebrew  Bible  (our  "Old  Testament")  reached  its  final 
shape.  Yahweh  was  now  systematically  pictured  as  the 
Creator  of  the  universe.  The  Old  Testament,  in  fact,  begins 
as  a  kind  of  universal  history.  But  in  the  third  chapter  of 
Genesis  the  purpose  of  Scripture  comes  to  light.  The  problem 
of  "good  and  evil"  emerges  into  view  (Gen.,  chaps.  3f.). 
Yahweh's  first  method  of  dealing  with  the  problem  is  that  of 
physical  destruction  through  the  Flood  (Gen.,  chaps.  6f.). 
When  this  fails  he  tries  the  method  of  ethical  redemption,  by 
training  the  children  of  Abraham  to  be  a  blessing  to  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  (Gen.,  chaps.  12  f.).  From  out  of  the 
flame  and  smoke  and  thunder  of  Sinai  he  promulgates  the 
"Torah,"  as  a  finality,  once  for  all,  just  as  an  absolute  oriental 
sovereign  lays  down  his  decrees  (Exod.,  chaps.  3f.).  The 
modern  conception  of  historical  development  was  impossible 
to  the  ancient  mind.  So  under  Judaism  the  Bible  religion 
took  a  form  which  (unconsciously)  denied  the  fact  of  develop- 
ment itself. 

1 W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church  (New  York,  1891), 
PP-  3J3>  3*45  cf-  Carpenter,  The  Bible  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  (London,  1903),  p.  153. 


CHAPTER   XXIII 
JUDAISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM 

Society  has  always  included  contrary  tendencies  within  its 
developing  structure. — The  growth  of  social  institutions 
takes  place  at  the  point  of  contact  between  two  or  more 
classes,  races,  or  "interests."  In  the  long  period  before  the 
Exile,  Hebrew  society  was  ruled  alternately  by  the  Israelite 
and  Amorite  traditions  inherited  from  its  double  ancestry. 
When  the  Israelite  tradition  was  dominant,  the  social  problem 
was  recognized;  and  when  the  Amorite  tradition  obtained 
ascendency,  the  social  problem  was  rejected  or  suppressed. 
The  ruin  of  the  nation  led  to  the  triumph  of  the  Israelite 
standpoint  and  the  establishment  of  "the  Jewish  church." 
Like  all  social  institutions,  however,  the  Jewish  church  came 
into  being  at  the  point  of  contact  between  "interests." 
Although  Judaism  developed  the  appearance  of  great  fixity 
and  solidity,  the  principles  on  which  it  was  based  represented 
contrary  tendencies.  "Jewish  religion,"  as  has  been  truly 
said,  "is  to  a  large  extent  a  fusion  of  inconsistent  elements,  of 
prophetic  and  priestly  origin,  respectively."1 

The  social  problem  was  at  length  rejected  by  the  forces  that 
silenced  prophecy  and  enthroned  the  priesthood. — Speaking  of  the 
priests  in  the  Roman  period,  Professor  Riggs  observes:  "The 
emoluments  of  their  office  brought  them  wealth  and  luxury, 
and  gave  them  little  interest  in  the  spiritual  demands  of  their 
exalted  position. ' '2  The  priests  and  scribes  were  the  custodians 
and  administrators  of  the  Torah;  and  while  in  most  cases 
they  were  devoted  to  the  worship  of  One  God  as  earnestly 
as  the  great  prophets,  they  tended  to  identify  religion  with 

1  Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile  (New  York,  1898),  p.  28. 
1  Riggs,  History  of  the  Jewish  People  (New  York,  1900),  p.  227. 

216 


JUDAISM   REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM          217 

the  ritual  forms  and  ceremonies  by  which  the  One  God  was 
worshiped.  Ritualism  was  necessary  to  the  devotion  and 
consecration  by  which  the  Bible  religion  grew  strong  in  the 
world.  "  For  the  great  majority  of  people,  rites  and  ceremonies 
are  a  necessary  expression  of  their  religion,  and  a  necessary 
aid  to  its  nourishment."1  But  ritualism  carries  its  own  peril 
with  it.  The  danger  that  lay  before  Judaism  was  the  tendency 
to  fight  the  worship  of  "other  gods"  without  opposing  the 
injustice  and  unrighteousness  with  which  "other  gods"  were 
identified  by  the  great  prophets.  A  large  part  of  the  member- 
ship of  the  Jewish  church  compromised  with  ritualism;  and 
this  was  true  especially  of  the  leading  priestly  families  and 
their  wealthy  allies.  While  Judaism  brought  much  that  was 
noble  into  the  world,  and  while  it  established  a  positive 
religious  advance,  it  included  a  strong  tendency  to  bring  back 
the  ancient  "  Amorite"  tradition  under  a  new  and  subtle  form. 

The  work  of  the  great  prophets  before  the  Exile  gave 
expression  to  a  prejudice  against  the  wealthy,  in  which  there 
was  little  or  no  attempt  to  draw  distinctions;  and  it  was  only 
as  this  prejudice  was  partly  overcome  that  rich  men  like 
Nehemiah  (supra,  p.  209)  were  able  to  share  actively  in  the 
reconstitution  of  Israel  and  the  establishment  of  the  Jewish 
church.  Wealth  is  necessary  to  the  religious  process.  The 
reconstitution  of  Israel  was  very  largely  the  work  of  conse- 
crated rich  men.  These  men  paid  the  bills  of  Judaism;  and 
in  time  the  upper  classes  began  to  regard  themselves  as  the 
proprietors  of  the  Jewish  church.  There  was  always  a 
tendency  among  the  Jews  to  identify  the  wealthy  and  the 
priestly  classes,  and  merge  them  in  a  single  body  opposed  to 
the  interests  of  the  common  man. 

Although  there  could  no  longer  be  a  conflict  of  parties  over 
the  question,  What  is  the  will  of  God  ?  (since  the  divine  Law 
was  now  in  book  form),  yet  there  could  be  a  difference  of  opin- 

1  Editorial,  Biblical  World,  (Chicago,  November,  1911),  p.  292. 


218  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

ion  over  the  interpretation  of  the  Law.  And  here  the  priests 
and  scribes,  and  their  wealthy  allies,  had  the  advantage  over 
the  common  man.  For  the  Law  was  in  their  official  keeping 
and  they  could  interpret  it  in  their  own  way.  The  great 
prophets  would  have  denounced  the  forces  that  ultimately 
came  into  control  of  Judaism.  According  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  scribes  and  Pharisees  tithed  mint,  and  anise,  and 
cummin,  but  left  undone  the  weightier  matters  of  the  Torah 
— especially  justice,  or  mishpat  (Matt.  23:23;  Luke  11:42). 
They  devoured  widows'  houses;  and  then  made  long  prayers 
(Mark  12:38-40;  cf.  Isa.  5:8,  etc.).  They  unconsciously 
witnessed  that  they  were  the  successors,  or  "sons,"  of  them 
that  slew  the  prophets  (Matt.  23:31). 

On  the  whole,  the  social  problem  was  rejected  by  the  Jewish 
church.  The  problem  itself  was  not  abolished,  of  course ;  but 
it  no  longer  took  the  positive,  creative  place  in  religious  life 
that  it  held  before  the  Exile.  This  was  because  the  religion  of 
Israel  was  already  created.  There  would  have  been  nothing 
for  prophecy  to  do  at  this  time,  save  to  criticize.  And  thus  the 
rejection  of  the  social  problem  went  along  with  the  silencing 
of  prophecy  and  the  enthronement  of  the  priesthood. 

The  common  man  took  the  same  place  in  Jewish  society  that 
he  had  in  all  the  ancient  civilizations. — While  the  re-establishment 
of  Israel  brought  with  it  a  positive  religious  advance,  and 
registered  a  large  gain  on  the  spiritual  side  of  the  evolutionary 
process,  it  brought  no  great  relief  to  the  common  man.  From 
the  purely  economic  standpoint,  Jewish  society  was  organized 
upon  the  same  institutional  basis  that  prevailed  in  all  the  great 
civilizations  of  antiquity.1  The  Jewish  upper  classes  held  the 

1  The  Torah  enjoins  kindness  and  charity  for  the  poor;  but  even  supposing 
charity  was  actually  practiced  as  there  demanded,  it  still  remains  a  fact  that  charity 
has  no  effect  on  the  rate  of  wages.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  civilization  in  which 
there  is  the  largest  spirit  of  charity  will  be  the  one  in  which  the  common  man  will 
ultimately  achieve  the  largest  liberty.  But  it  is  the  rate  of  wages,  and  not  the  practice 
of  technical  "charity,"  that  measures  the  liberty  of  the  people  and  the  final  success 
of  civilization.  The  picture  drawn  by  ben  Sirach,  at  which  we  glance  below,  accords 
with  all  that  we  are  able  to  discover  about  the  lower  classes  in  Jewish  society. 


JUDAISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM          219 

lower  orders  in  slavery,  monopolized  the  soil,  and  controlled 
the  operations  of  commerce  and  manufacture.  A  most  inter- 
esting and  instructive  piece  of  testimony  relative  to  the  Jewish 
estimate  of  the  common  man  is  found  in  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach, 
which  we  reproduce : 

The  wisdom  of  the  scribe  cometh  by  opportunity  of  leisure;  and  he 
that  hath  little  business  shall  become  wise. 

How  shall  he  become  wise  that  holdeth  the  plow;  that  glorieth  in  the 
shaft  of  the  goad;  that  driveth  oxen,  and  is  occupied  in  their  labors,  and 
whose  discourse  is  of  the  stock  of  bulls?  He  will  set  his  heart  upon 
turning  his  furrows;  and  his  wakefulness  is  to  give  his  heifers  their 
fodder. 

So  is  every  artificer  and  workmaster,  that  passeth  his  time  by  night 
as  by  day;  they  that  cut  gravings  of  signets;  and  his  diligence  is  to 
make  great  variety.  He  will  set  his  heart  to  preserve  likeness  in  his 
portraiture,  and  will  be  wakeful  to  finish  his  work. 

So  is  the  smith  sitting  by  the  anvil,  and  considering  the  un wrought 
iron.  The  vapor  of  the  fire  will  waste  his  flesh;  and  in  the  heat  of  the 
furnace  will  he  wrestle.  The  noise  of  the  hammer  will  be  ever  in  his  ear; 
and  his  eyes  are  upon  the  pattern  of  the  vessel.  He  will  set  his  heart 
upon  perfecting  his  works;  and  he  will  be  wakeful  to  adorn  them  perfectly. 

So  is  the  potter  sitting  at  his  work,  and  turning  the  wheel  about  with 
his  feet ;  who  is  alway  anxiously  set  at  his  work ;  and  all  his  handywork 
is  by  number.  He  will  fashion  the  clay  with  his  arm,  and  will  bend  its 
strength  in  front  of  his  feet.  He  will  apply  his  heart  to  finish  the  glazing; 
and  he  will  be  wakeful  to  make  clean  the  furnace. 

All  these  put  their  trust  in  their  hands;  and  each  becometh  wise  hi 
his  own  work.  Without  these  shall  not  a  city  be  inhabited;  and  men 
shall  not  sojourn  nor  walk  up  and  down. 

They  shall  not  be  sought  for  in  the  council  of  the  people ;  and  in  the 
assembly  they  shall  not  mount  on  high.  They  shall  not  sit  on  the  seat 
of  the  judge;  and  they  shall  not  understand  the  covenant  of  judgment. 
Neither  shall  they  declare  instruction  and  judgment;  and  where  parables 
are,  they  shall  not  be  found.  But  they  will  maintain  the  fabric  of  the 
world;  and  in  the  handywork  of  their  craft  is  their  prayer  (Sirach 
38: 24-34).' 

1  The  Book  of  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  was  written  more  than  a  century  before  the 
time  of  Christ.  It  was  never  adopted  into  the  Hebrew  Bible.  We  quote  from  the 
Revised  Apocrypha  (Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons,  New  York),  but  with  different  punctua- 
tion and  paragraph  arrangement. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 
THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  DELIVERANCE 

The  Jews  longed  for  deliverance  from  trouble. — In  the  midst 
of  social  conditions  like  those  at  which  we  have  just  glanced, 
it  is  but  natural  that  a  great  longing  for  deliverance  and  help 
should  grow  up.  The  Jewish  "messianic  hope"  has  been  one 
of  the  stock  themes  of  Christian  theology.  It  was  at  first 
viewed  by  the  gentile  world  as  a  thing  essentially  unique, 
standing  out  of  relation  to  the  common  thought  of  mankind; 
and  the  subject  was  not  set  in  its  true  light  until  recently. 
Only  in  the  last  generation  have  we  been  able  to  see  it  in  con- 
nection with  the  universal  forces  that  move  history. 

All  peoples  have  had  the  desire  to  escape  from  difficulty 
and  graduate  into  a  happier  condition.  Without  this  feeling, 
the  movement  of  progressive  civilization  would  be  unthink- 
able. The  Jewish  longing  for  deliverance,  redemption,  or 
salvation,  was  founded  upon  tendencies  that  are  potent 
wherever  men  are  found;  but  the  hope  itself  took  a  form 
peculiar  to  the  time  and  the  people  among  whom  it  arose. 
The  thoughts  of  the  Jews  naturally  flowed  in  the  channels 
cut  by  their  ancestry.  The  pre-exilic  Hebrews,  like  other 
ancient  peoples,  looked  up  to  their  god  for  help.  Where 
the  Babylonians  trusted  in  Marduk,  and  the  Egyptians  in 
Amon,  the  Hebrews  had  faith  in  Yahweh.  They  believed 
that  Yahweh  would  save  them  from  their  enemies  and  make 
them  triumphant  over  their  foes,  in  his  good  time,  or  "day." 
The  original  idea  of  the  Day  of  Yahweh  was  therefore  base 
and  materialistic.  In  opposition  to  this  view,  the  great 
prophets  declared  that  the  Day  would  be  (i)  a  time  of  punish- 
ment, after  which  (2)  a  righteous  remnant  would  be  saved 
and  glorified.  The  destruction  and  exile  of  Israel  was  regarded 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  DELIVERANCE  221 

as  the  fulfilment  of  the  first  part  of  this  prediction.  "Israel 
went  into  captivity  for  their  iniquity,  because  they  trespassed 
against  me"  (Ezek.  39:23).  After  the  people  had  received 
of  Yahweh's  hand  "double"  for  all  their  sins  (Jer.  16:18; 
Isa.  40:1-2),  and  after  Judah  was  reconstituted  in  the  Holy 
Land,  the  second  part  of  the  prophetic  anticipation  began  to 
be  heralded.  For  it  was  clear  to  all  the  people — upper  and 
lower  classes  alike — that  the  actual  state  of  things  prevailing 
after  the  Captivity  could  not,  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagina- 
tion, be  the  miraculous  Utopia  of  the  prophets.  So  the  idea 
of  a  coming  time  of  deliverance  worked  like  a  ferment  in  the 
Jewish  mind.  Redemption  was  to  be  accomplished  by  Yah- 
weh  through  the  instrumentality  of  his  "anointed  one,"  or 
"Messiah"  (mashiacti) .  These  expectations  included  various 
elements  of  a  supernatural,  apocalyptic  nature,  familiar 
enough  to  Christians  in  later  ages. 

The  messianic  hope  took  different  forms  among  the  different 
social  classes  in  Judaism. — Common  to  the  expectation  of  all 
classes  was  the  miraculous,  apocalyptic,  supernatural  char- 
acter of  the  coming  age  of  glory.  But,  on  the  ground  of  this 
common  view,  there  was  a  very  sharp  distinction  between 
the  messianic  ideas  held  by  different  elements  among  the 
Jews. 

Upper-class  Messianism. — The  great  priestly  families,  the 
officials,  and  the  wealthy  in  general,  were  opposed  to  the 
domination  of  Judah  by  foreign  powers.  The  drain  of  tribute 
paid  to  outsiders  reduced  the  amount  which  the  Jewish  upper 
classes  themselves  could  extract  from  the  country.  They 
were  therefore  theoretically  in  favor  of  breaking  the  foreign 
yoke.  But,  in  a  prudent  spirit,  they  wanted  to  leave  the 
deliverance  to  the  intervention  of  God  himself.  Being  in 
better  circumstances  than  the  mass  of  the  people,  they  could 
better  afford  to  "wait  on  God."  Their  idea  of  the  messianic 
age,  and  of  the  Messiah  himself,  was  in  theory  political;  but 


222  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

in  practice  it  was  tempered  by  a  discreet  accommodation  to 
the  powers  that  actually  ruled  the  world.  The  upper-class 
idea  of  the  messianic  age  is  found  in  the  following  passage: 
"Strangers  shall  stand  and  feed  your  flocks;  and  foreigners 
shall  be  your  plowmen  and  your  vinedressers.  But  ye  shall 
be  named  'the  priests  of  Yahweh.'  Men  shall  call  you  'the 
ministers  of  our  God.'  Ye  shall  eat  the  wealth  of  the  nations; 
and  to  their  glory  shall  ye  succeed"  (Isa.  61 : 5-6). 

Lower-class  Messianism. — On  the  other  hand,  while  the 
Jewish  lower  classes  looked  also  for  a  supernatural  golden  age, 
their  idea  of  the  messianic  time  differed  from  that  of  the 
aristocracy.  For  they  desired  not  only  to  be  released  from 
the  rule  of  outsiders;  but,  in  the  spirit  of  Amos  and  the  other 
great  prophets,  they  wanted  to  be  freed  as  well  from  the  rule 
of  the  Jewish  upper  classes.  The  lower-class  idea  found 
expression  in  the  following  passages:  "And  there  shall  come 
forth  a  shoot  out  of  the  stock  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  out  of 
his  roots  shall  bear  fruit  .  .  .  .  ;  and  he  shall  not  judge  after 
the  sight  of  his  eyes,  neither  decide  after  the  hearing  of  his 
ears;  but  with  righteousness  shall  he  judge  the  poor,  and 

decide  with  equity  for  the  meek  of  the  land He  shall 

bring  forth  mishpat  to  the  nations He  shall  bring  forth 

mishpat  in  truth.  He  shall  not  fail  nor  be  discouraged  till 
he  have  set  mishpat  in  the  earth;  and  the  isles  shall  wait  for 
his  law"  (Isa.  11:1-4;  42:1-4). 

Thus  we  see  that  the  messianic  idea  took  different  forms 
among  the  different  elements  of  society.  The  upper  classes 
wanted  foreigners  to  come  and  do  their  work,  while  the  Jews 
ate  the  wealth  of  the  nations  and  succeeded  to  the  world's 
glory;  but  the  lower  classes  were  infected  with  social  revolu- 
tion, and  wanted  to  set  mishpat,  or  justice,  in  the  land.1 
Unless  the  sociological  and  economic  aspects  of  Jewish  Messian- 

1  The  Messianism  of  the  masses,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  so  sane  as 
that  of  the  great  prophets. 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  DELIVERANCE  223 

ism  are  held  sharply  in  mind,  the  real  nature  of  the  situation 
will  not  be  clear  to  us. 

The  long  period  between  the  re-establishment  of  Judah  and 
the  time  of  the  New  Testament  is  complicated  by  the  rise  and 
fall  of  Jewish  parties  and  by  conflicts  between  Jews  and 
foreigners.  The  sources  of  historical  evidence  for  this  period 
are  scanty;  and  the  only  clue  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
evidence  is  the  play  of  interests  moving  hi  the  channels  cut  out 
by  the  evolution  of  Israel  before  the  Captivity.  The  Law  was 
not  always  interpreted  in  the  interest  of  the  upper  classes. 
In  the  Greek  period,  for  instance,  the  Torah  was  the  symbol  of 
revolt  against  wealthy  priests  and  foreign  oppressors.  But  this 
revolt  itself  established  a  priestly  government  which  in  time 
fell  out  of  touch  with  popular  interests. 

A  revolutionary  uprising  by  the  lower  class  caused  the  Romans 
to  destroy  Judah. — The  final  catastrophe  of  Judaism  occurred 
under  the  Roman  empire,  and  is  directly  traceable  to  a  mes- 
sianic uprising  of  the  lower  class.  It  was  begun  by  the  common 
people,  and  at  first  had  the  form  of  an  insurrection  against  the 
Roman  authority.  Its  real  nature  is  well  exhibited  in  the 
chronicle  of  Josephus,  a  Jewish  historian  who  belonged  to  the 
aristocracy.  With  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the  upper  class 
in  this  crisis,  Josephus  writes: 

The  men  of  power,  with  the  high  priests,  as  also  all  the  part  of  the 
multitude  that  were  desirous  of  peace,  took  courage,  and  seized  upon  the 
upper  city  [Mount  Sion]. 

Concerning  the  lower  class  at  this  time,  he  says: 

The  seditious  part  [of  the  people]  had  the  lower  city  and  the  temple 

in  their  power They  grew  bolder,  and  carried  their  undertaking 

further The  king's  soldiers  were  overpowered  by  then*  multitude 

and  boldness;  and  so  they  gave  way,  and  were  driven  out  of  the  upper 
city  by  force.  The  others  then  set  fire  to  the  house  of  Ananias  the  high 
priest,  and  to  the  palaces  of  Agrippa  and  Berenice;  after  which  they 
carried  the  fire  to  the  place  where  the  archives  were  reposited,  and  made 
haste  to  burn  the  contracts  belonging  to  their  creditors,  and  thereby  to 


224  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

dissolve  their  obligations  for  paying  their  debts;  and  this  was  done  in 
order  to  gain  the  multitude  of  those  who  had  been  debtors,  and  that 
they  might  persuade  the  poorer  sort  to  join  in  their  insurrection  with 
safety  against  the  more  wealthy;  so  the  keepers  of  the  records  fled 

away,  and  the  rest  set  fire  to  them 

At  which  time  some  of  the  men  of  power,  and  of  the  high  priests, 

went  into  the  vaults  underground,  and  concealed  themselves The 

high  priest  was  caught  where  he  had  concealed  himself  in  an  aqueduct; 
he  was  slain,  together  with  Hezekiah  his  brother l 

Being  convinced  that  it  was  impossible  to  avoid  revolution, 
the  upper  class  attempted  to  organize  the  movement,  hoping 
to  make  terms  with  Rome  later.  But  this  was  impossible; 
and  the  situation  drifted  into  anarchy.  At  last,  in  the  year 
70  A.D.,  a  Roman  army  destroyed  the  city  of  Jerusalem;  and 
the  Hebrew  nation  vanished  from  the  stage  of  history.  Long 
before  this,  the  Jews  had  been  widely  scattered  over  the  world ; 
but  now  they  were  a  people  without  a  country,  save  where 
they  became  citizens  of  other  nations. 

In  the  midst  of  this  time  of  high  social  stress,  when  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  seemed  to  be  on  the  point  of  destruction, 
it  went  through  another  stage  of  development,  and  began  to 
spread  abroad  in  the  world  under  the  form  of  Christianity. 
This  phase  of  its  evolution  will  occupy  us  in  the  following  part 
of  our  study. 

1  Josephus,  Wars  of  the  Jews,  Book  II,  chap,  xvii,  sees.  5,  6,  9. 


PART  IV 

THE  SPREAD  OF  BIBLE  RELIGION 


FOREWORD  TO  PART  IV 

In  this  part  of  our  study  we  seek  to  learn  how  the  religion 
of  the  Bible  escaped  the  limits  of  Israel  and  spread  abroad 
in  the  world.  Without  minimizing  the  great  work  of  Jesus 
and  Paul,  we  try  to  show  that  the  interpretation  of  Christian- 
ity, as  well  as  that  of  Judaism,  should  reckon  with  the  external, 
social  order.  It  has  been  claimed  that  the  New  Testament 
stands  for  a  purely  personal  evolution;  and  that  Christianity 
was  a  movement  outside  the  existing  state-religion.  There  is 
a  sense  in  which  this  is  true;  but  the  same  truth  applies  to 
Judaism  and  the  Old  Testament.  For  at  the  time  the  great 
prophets  did  their  work,  they  too,  like  Jesus  and  the  early 
Christians,  were  antagonistic  to  the  "established"  religion; 
and  the  prophetic  point  of  view  did  not  become  "official" 
for  several  hundred  years.  The  New  Testament  religion 
passed  through  the  same  phases.  The  mere  fact  that  a 
religious  movement  in  antiquity  is  not  at  once  articulated 
with  state  machinery  is  no  proof  that  such  a  movement  has 
no  sociological  meaning. 

A  word  of  caution  may  be  well  here.  Our  emphasis  upon 
sociological  and  economic  facts  does  not  mean  that  we  find  in 
these  facts  a  complete  philosophy,  or  explanation,  of  history. 
Sociological  investigation,  like  other  kinds  of  scientific  research, 
deals  with  a  series  of  "unknown  quantities."  The  chemist, 
for  instance,  gives  us  working-formulas  for  chemical  reactions 
between  the  "elements"  of  matter;  but  the  elements  them- 
selves remain  a  mystery.  And  even  though  chemistry  has  the 
character  of  a  scientific  discipline,  it  does  not  reveal  what  an 
"element"  is.  In  the  same  way,  sociology  looks  upon  persons 
as  elements  in  the  social  process.  But  while  personality 
comes  within  the  terms  of  social  evolution,  sociology  does  not 

227 


228  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

undertake  to  solve  the  mystery  of  personality  any  more  than 
chemistry  undertakes  to  solve  the  mystery  of  matter.  Soci- 
ology, in  other  words,  deals  with  a  complex  mass  of  unknown 
quantities.  The  application  of  the  foregoing  remarks  to  the 
previous  chapters,  and  to  those  that  follow,  is  evident.  In 
studying  the  spread  of  Bible  religion,  we  claim  only  that  the 
work  of  Jesus  lends  itself  to  interpretation  "within  the  terms 
of  the  social  process,"  even  though  the  personality  of  Jesus 
remains  a  mystery.  The  religion  of  the  Bible,  in  its  outstand- 
ing idea  of  the  Redeeming  God,  supplies  the  foundation  on 
which  Christian  history  has  been  transacted.  Sociology  aims 
not  to  solve  the  problem  of  Jesus,  but  merely  to  assist  in  the 
statement  of  the  problem. 


CHAPTER  XXV 
THE  WORK  OF  JESUS 

The  religion  of  the  Bible  at  length  took  a  new  form. — Chris- 
tianity arose  within  the  Jewish  church  in  a  way  similar  to 
that  in  which  Methodism  arose  within  the  Church  of  England. 
Jesus  was  an  adherent  of  the  old  faith ;  and  the  first  Christians 
were  viewed,  by  themselves  and  by  others,  merely  as  a  party 
within  the  fold  of  Judaism.  The  confession  attributed  to 
Paul,  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  indicates  the  standpoint  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus:  "After  the  Way  which  they  call  'a  sect,' 
so  serve  I  the  God  of  our  fathers,  believing  all  things  which  are 
according  to  the  Law,  and  which  are  written  in  the  Prophets" 
(Acts  24:14).  The  Christians  at  first  could  only  testify 
that  they  had  a  "Way."  This  Way  had  been  taught  by 
Jesus;  and  he  was  himself  the  personal  symbol  of  the  Way. 
Christianity,  being  a  new  phase  of  the  fundamental  religion 
of  the  Bible,  addressed  itself  primarily  to  the  feelings;  and  the 
Christians  were  slow  in  perceiving  its  logic.  The  term  "  Chris- 
tianity" does  not  occur  in  the  Bible.  The  name  "Christian" 
is  found  in  the  New  Testament  only  three  times  (Acts  11:26', 
26:28;  I  Pet.  4:16).  This  name  was  corned  apparently  by 
enemies  of  the  movement.  Christianity  carries  with  it  a  part  of 
the  sense  of  Jewish  messianism,  together  with  a  new  meaning. 

Christianity  is  continuous,  but  not  identical,  with  Judaism. — 
In  approaching  Christianity  and  the  New  Testament  from  the 
sociological  point  of  view,  we  are  confronted  at  the  start  by  the 
fact  of  continuity.  The  entire  Bible  is  embraced  within  the 
scope  of  a  single  process  of  evolution.  Christianity  is  an 
outgrowth  of  Judaism.  The  New  Testament  is  bound  up 
with  the  Bible  of  the  Hebrews,  logically  as  well  as  physically. 
The  Christian  church  is  the  child  of  the  Old  Testament 

229 


23o  SOCIOLOGICAL   STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

church.  The  Christian  saint  finds  his  prototype  in  the  Israelite 
in  whom  there  is  no  guile.  In  brief,  Christianity  is  a  develop- 
ment within  the  terms  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  To  claim 
anything  less  than  this  would  be  to  cut  the  ground  from 
under  the  feet  of  Christianity.  The  fact  of  continuity  has 
always  been  recognized  by  the  common  sense  of  the  great 
leaders  of  the  church,  as  well  as  by  the  instinct  of  the 
rank  and  file;  although  from  the  very  first,  some  persons 
have  supposed  that  the  Christians  were  setters-forth  of 
strange  gods.  Judaism  and  Christianity  alike  worship  the 
Redeeming  God  of  the  Bible;  yet  they  contemplate  the 
redemption  of  the  world  from  different  points  of  view.  The 
difference  between  them  turns  around  the  work  of  Jesus;  and 
although  the  contrast  is  very  small  in  theory,  its  practical 
effects  are  of  large  importance. 

The  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  has  a  tendency  to  take  the 
character  of  an  abstract  idea. — A  Christian  writer  once  told 
the  Hebrews  that  the  character  of  God  was  expressed  by  the 
Hebrew  prophets  in  "divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners" 
(Heb.  1:1).  The  prophets  evolved  a  long  series  of  thoughts 
which  at  length  flowed  together  into  the  conception  of  the 
Redeeming  God.  This  agrees  with  our  study  of  the  develop- 
ment of  Bible  religion.  The  God-idea  which  breaks  forth  on 
us  from  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  is  the  product  of  a  long 
evolution.  Different  parts  of  the  finished  conception  were 
supplied  by  different  prophets  and  schools  of  thought.  The 
Jew — the  post-exilic  Hebrew — inherited  a  "philosophy,"  even 
though  his  conceptions  were  not  evolved  in  the  same  way 
that  Greek  or  German  philosophy  develops.  The  Greek  phi- 
losopher went  through  a  process  of  abstract  thinking.  The 
Hebrew  lived  through  a  process  of  concrete  experience.  The 
methods  in  the  two  cases  were  different;  but  the  final  results 
are  in  the  same  category.  Both  Jew  and  Greek  evolved 
philosophy,  but  by  different  routes. 


THE  WORK  OF  JESUS  231 

The  Jew,  however,  was  prevented  by  his  "group-interests" 
from  viewing  his  religion  as  a  philosophical  abstraction. — The 
religion  of  Yahweh  was  bound  up  with  the  national  welfare 
of  the  Hebrews,  just  as  the  religion  of  Chemosh  was  bound  up 
with  the  national  welfare  of  the  Moabites.  The  battles 
of  Israel  were  the  battles  of  Yahweh.  Church  and  State  were 
united.  The  religion  of  Israel  was  the  symbol  of  national 
unity;  and  it  was  an  assertion  of  the  nation's  integrity  as 
against  the  rest  of  the  world.  This  principle  was  true  not 
only  of  the  old  Hebrew  kingdom  before  the  Exile;  it  was 
equally  true  of  post-exilic  Judaism.  Religion  was  bound 
up  closely  with  the  interests  of  Jewish  patriotism,  and  with 
pride  in  the  Hebrew  race  as  the  "chosen  people  of  God."  It 
was  the  interpretation  of  his  religion  in  terms  of  his  own 
"group-interest,"  then,  that  prevented  the  Jew  from  taking 
his  religion  as  a  mere  abstract  philosophy.  It  was  this  con- 
sideration alone  that  gave  life  to  post-exilic  Judaism;  and  so, 
even  today,  orthodox  Judaism  is  a  matter  of  race.1 

Since  gentile  society  cannot  become  Hebrew,  it  necessarily 
treats  the  Old  Testament  religion  as  a  philosophical  abstraction. — 
For  many  reasons,  orthodox  Judaism  is  impossible  as  a  cos- 
mopolitan religion.  The  foundation  of  the  problem  is  the 
conflict  between  the  group-interests  of  Jews  and  gentiles.  Any 
foreign  people  who  desired  to  practice  the  religion  of  the 
Hebrews  in  ancient  times  would  have  had  to  renounce  their 
political  integrity  and  merge  themselves  in  Israel.  But  it  was 
practically  impossible  to  break  down  the  barriers  between 
ancient  social  groups  in  any  such  free  and  easy  fashion. 
Judaism,  in  spite  of  its  deep  spirituality  and  its  high  moral 
appeal,  could  not  be  identified  with  the  patriotism  of  the 
gentile  because  it  was  already  identified  with  the  patriotism 
of  the  Jew.  While  a  few  foreigners  might,  as  individuals, 
attach  themselves  to  Israel,  the  gentile  world  could  not  enter 

1  We  are  not  here  speaking  of  "reformed"  Judaism. 


23  2  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

into  the  Jewish  nation  and  become  Hebrews.  Consequently, 
the  gentiles  remained  outside  of  Judaism.  In  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  the  non- Jewish  world  looks  at  Judaism 
from  the  outside.  And  when  the  Old  Testament  religion  is 
regarded  thus,  in  a  purely  external  way,  without  being  medi- 
ated by  group-interests,  it  has  the  character  of  a  bloodless 
abstraction,  devoid  of  life  and  meaning.  The  prophetic  identi- 
fication of  God  with  morality  meant  little  or  nothing  to  the 
gentile.  This  is  why  the  Hebrew  Bible  interests  the  Christian 
so  little  as  compared  with  the  New  Testament.  The  Law 
and  the  Prophets  never  can  be  so  popular  as  the  Gospels. 

How,  then,  has  the  gentile  world  received  the  Bible  religion? — 
It  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact  that  this  religion,  which  was  at 
first  confined  to  a  social  group  known  as  "  Israel,"  overflowed 
its  barriers  and  spread  throughout  the  world.  How  did  this 
result  come  to  pass  ?  How  did  the  religion  of  the  Redeeming 
God  break  through  the  social  barrier  that  lay  between  Jew  and 
gentile  ?  What  force  made  a  breach  in  "the  middle  wall  of 
partition"?  How  was  the  God  of  Israel  appropriated  by 
the  gentile  world?  How  did  the  Bible  religion  clothe  itself 
in  the  form  of  the  Christian  church?  The  solution  of  this 
problem  is  as  mighty  as  it  is  commonplace;  and  it  involves 
far  more  than  appears  on  the  surface.  We  cannot  really  under- 
stand the  Christian  church  as  a  fact  of  human  history  unless 
we  understand  the  Old  Testament.  We  shall  see  the  New 
Testament  through  a  clouded  glass  until  we  are  able  to  see 
it  as  a  logical  item  in  the  process  that  began  far  back  in  old 
Hebrew  times. 

The  central  and  most  impressive  ceremony  around  which  the 
Christian  church  is  organized. — In  approaching  the  institution 
called  "the  Christian  church,"  the  sociologist  at  once  investi- 
gates the  most  important  rite,  or  ceremony,  practiced  by 
organized  bodies  of  believers.  It  is  not  the  Christian  organiza- 
tion itself  that  calls  for  special  study  and  explanation.  People 


THE  WORK  OF  JESUS  233 

organize  for  all  sorts  of  purposes.  We  find  social  groups 
everywhere.  It  is  not  the  mere  fact  that  Christians  are 
gathered  together  in  groups  that  calls  for  special  attention. 
Social  science  wants  to  know  what  the  Christian  church 
actually  does,  as  an  organization,  to  distinguish  it  from  other 
organizations. 

The  central  and  most  impressive  rite,  or  ceremony,  of  the 
Christian  church  is  the  "Holy  Communion."  In  this  rite, 
the  believer  partakes  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  (Luke  22 : 
19,  20,  etc.).  The  Communion  is  the  figure  of  a  spiritual 
experience  in  which  the  Christian  lays  hold,  through  Jesus,  upon 
the  Redeeming  God  of  the  Bible.  This  impressive  and  affecting 
ceremony  is  the  sign  of  the  bond  between  Jesus  and  his  fol- 
lowers; and  it  stands  broadly  for  "the  Christian  life."  In  that 
life,  Christ  is  "  formed  "  in  the  believer  (Gal.  4:19);  the  disciple 
is  "hidden"  with  Christ  in  the  Redeeming  God  (Col.  3:3). 
All  these  figures  come  within  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the 
Communion.  The  central  ceremony  practiced  by  the  Chris- 
tian church  bears  witness  that  Jesus  makes  the  God  of  the 
Bible  a  reality  for  the  world.  It  signifies  the  essential  fact  of 
Christian  experience;  but  it  does  not  explain  how  Jesus  accom- 
plishes this  work.  The  fact,  and  the  explanation  of  it,  are  two 
different  things. 

It  is  a  mere,  plain  fact  of  history  that  the  "middle  wall  of 
partition"  was  in  some  way  broken  down  by  the  man  Jesus, 
so  that  those  who  were  "alienated  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel,"  those  who  were  "far  off,"  those  who  were  "without 
God  in  the  world" — all  such  were  "made  near"  (Eph.  2:11- 
14). I  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  the  work  of  Jesus 
was  only  for  the  gentile  world.  The  New  Testament,  as  a 
whole,  does  not  picture  his  mission  as  limited  to  the  gentiles. 

1  In  this  great  passage  it  is  noticeable  that  the  author  of  Ephesians  employs 
the  symbol  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  (vss.  13  and  15),  and  expressly  views  him 
as  building  upon  the  foundation  of  "the  prophets"  (vs.  20.)  The  author  plainly 
has  the  "social  group"  category  in  view. 


234  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  gospel  was  not  only  to  those  that  were' "far  off"  (i.e.,  the 
gentiles),  but  to  those  who  were  "nigh,"  to  the  Jew  first,  and 
then  to  the  Greek  (Eph.  2:17;  Rom.  1:16).  According  to 
the  Book  of  Acts,  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons;  but  in  every 
nation  those  that  fear  him  and  work  righteousness  are  accept- 
able to  him  (Acts  10:34,  35).  This  long-range  observa- 
tion of  Christianity  prepares  us  to  draw  closer  to  the  facts, 
and  inquire  how  the  middle  wall  of  partition  was  broken 
down. 

The  missing  factor  in  Jewish  religion. — We  have  already  pointed 
out  that,  in  the  eyes  of  the  gentile  world,  the  Old  Testament 
religion  was  necessarily  an  abstract,  unreal  thing,  devoid  of 
life  or  meaning.  The  only  consideration  that  prevented  it  from 
having  the  same  character  for  the  Jewish  people  was  their 
"group-interests,"  i.e.,  their  patriotism,  and  their  race-pride 
as  "God's  elect."  While  Judaism  has  an  immense  potential 
value,  its  propagating  impulse  remains  therefore  an  affair  of 
nationality  and  race. 

Theoretically,  Judaism  is  a  complete  and  perfect  religion. 
It  dramatizes  God  as  the  leading  actor  in  the  redemption 
of  the  world.  Yet,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Old  Testament 
process,  the  redemptive  idea  of  God  is  left  suspended  in  the 
form  of  an  abstraction.  Every  idea  that  moves  the  world 
at  large  has  to  be  brought  to  a  center,  or  condensed,  in 
the  life  of  an  individual.  The  historian  Froude  has  observed 
that  "principles  are  identified  with  persons,  who  form  as  it 
were  the  focus  on  which  the  passions  concentrate."1  But  in 
the  nature  of  the  situation,  the  process  of  Hebrew  spiritual 
development  could  not  attach  itself  to  any  one  prophet.  The 
work  of  the  prophets  was  to  rebuke  injustice;  their  mighty 
contribution  to  the  progress  of  the  idea  of  God  was  incidental, 
or  secondary.  They  expressed  the  character  of  God  in  "  divers 
portions"  and  in  "divers  manners."  No  prophet,  or  school  of 

1  Froude,  History  of  England  (New  York,  1873),  Vol.  I,  p.  196. 


THE  WORK  OF  JESUS  235 

prophets,  deserves  to  be  credited  with  the  full-orbed  idea  of 
the  Redeeming  God,  which  flames  out  on  us  from  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  whole.  The  redemptive  idea  hangs  in  the 
air  as  a  beautiful  philosophy,  to  be  learned  in  all  its  fulness 
only  by  the  student  who  examines  the  Old  Testament  with 
more  care  than  the  vast  majority  of  persons,  either  Jew  or 
gentile,  can  afford  to  give. 

How  the  religion  of  redemption  was  thrown  open  to  the  world 
through  the  ministry  of  Jesus. — Although  we  can  never  know  the 
early  life  of  Jesus,  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  tradition  is 
correct  which  represents  him  as  a  student  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  He  was  not  necessarily  a  student  in  the  scholastic, 
or  academic,  sense;  nor  could  he  have  investigated  the  Old 
Testament  in  a  scientific  and  historical  spirit.  But,  more  than 
anyone,  he  comprehended  the  Scripture  in  the  light  of  its 
moral  and  spiritual  purpose.  The  religious  life  of  Jesus  was 
not  based  on  a  coldly  rational  process;  but  moving  on  the 
sure  ground  of  genius,  he  saw  that  the  world  would  never 
be  converted  to  the  God  of  the  Bible  unless  that  God  were 
made  real  and  vivid  in  a  new  way.  So  Jesus  did  something 
that  none  of  the  prophets  ever  thought  of  doing.  He  made 
himself  "one"  with  the  Redeeming  God  of  the  Hebrews,  work- 
ing out  in  his  own  life  the  divine  drama  of  salvation,  and 
calling  upon  others  to  follow  his  example.  "Logicians  may 
reason  about  abstractions,"  writes  the  historian  Macaulay, 
"but  the  great  mass  of  men  must  have  images."  That  is  to 
say,  they  unconsciously  demand  something  that  strikes  upon 
their  imagination: 

God,  the  uncreated,  the  incomprehensible,  the  invisible,  attracted 
few  worshipers.  A  philosopher  might  admire  so  noble  a  conception: 
but  the  crowd  turned  away  in  disgust  from  words  which  presented  no 
image  to  their  minds.  It  was  before  Deity  embodied  in  a  human  form, 
walking  among  men,  partaking  of  their  infirmities,  leaning  on  their 
bosoms,  weeping  over  their  graves,  slumbering  in  the  manger,  bleeding 
on  the  cross,  that  the  prejudices  of  the  Synagogue,  the  doubts  of  the 


236  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Academy,  the  pride  of  the  Portico,  the  fasces  of  the  Lictor,  and  the 
swords  of  thirty  legions,  were  humbled  in  the  dust.1 

Where  the  great  prophets  expressed  the  divine  character 
in  divers  ways,  Jesus  was  the  "image"  of  the  Redeeming 
God  (Heb.  1:1-3;  cf.  I  Cor.  1:30;  II  Cor.  4:4).  He  was  the 
embodiment,  or  "incarnation,"  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  In 
him  was  condensed  the  entire  process  of  spiritual  evolution 
represented  by  the  Old  Testament.  While  men  have  differed 
about  the  "incarnation"  as  a  matter  of  theology,  or  meta- 
physics, it  has  worked  steadily  onward  in  human  history, 
whether  it  has  been  understood  or  not.  Jesus  did  something 
new — something  peculiar  to  himself.  Before  his  time,  the 
Bible  idea  of  God  was  not  a  living  reality  in  the  world  at  large. 
Heathenism  was  practically  supreme.  The  gentiles  were 
ignorant  of  Bible  religion;  and  that  religion  was  kept  alive 
among  the  Jews  chiefly  by  the  momentum  of  their  "group- 
interests."  We  know,  of  course,  that  much  genuine  faith  and 
piety  existed  among  the  Jews;  but  this  faith  was  not  calculated 
to  be  the  rallying-point  for  a  triumphant  religious  campaign 
throughout  the  earth.  Modern  people  have  a  tendency  to 
imagine  that  God  seemed  the  same  before  the  Christian  era 
that  he  does  now,  and  that  the  world  "before  Christ"  looked 
the  same  as  it  looks  now;  but  this  is  a  mistake.  For  just  as 
the  world  assumes  a  new  character  in  the  eyes  of  the  lover; 
just  as  life  appears  different  when  viewed  from  the  standpoint 
of  some  great  success;  in  the  same  way,  God  and  the  world 
look  different  in  Christian  civilization  than  they  did  in  ^re- 
Christian  tunes.  The  spiritual  atmosphere  of  Christendom 
is  created  by  Jesus.2 

Christianity  will  always  be  hard  for  the  rationalist  to  define 
because  it  is  primarily  "personal." — If  we  approach  Christianity 
in  search  of  some  distinctive  theology,  or  philosophy,  we 

1  Macaulay,  Essay  on  Milton,  par.  38.    Italics  ours. 

3  The  name  "Jesus"  is  a  Hellenized  form  of  the  Hebrew  Joshua,  meaning  "Yah- 
weh  is  salvation."  This  was  a  well-known  Hebrew  name. 


THE  WORK  OF  JESUS  237 

miss  its  meaning  as  a  fresh,  original  fact  in  social  evolution. 
The  difficulty  of  explaining  it  from  the  rational  standpoint, 
as  a  collection  of  doctrines,  has  prompted  the  somewhat  mis- 
leading statement  that,  after  all,  Christianity  is  not  a  doctrine 
but  a  " life."  As  a  fact  in  the  history  of  the  world,  it  is  neither 
a  "life"  nor  a  "doctrine":  It  is  partnership  with  God,  through 
Jesus,  in  the  redemption  of  the  world.  It  is  Jesus  making 
the  God  of  the  Bible  a  reality  to  mankind.  Christianity, 
then,  is  first  of  all  a  "personal"  experience;  and  it  is  hard  to 
define  just  because  it  has  this  inner,  subjective,  psychological 
character.  It  means  the  projection  into  gentile  society  of  the 
spiritual  evolution  that  went  on  among  the  Hebrews.  It 
means  the  appropriation  of  the  Redeeming  God  of  Israel  by 
the  non- Jewish  world.  Christianity,  of  course,  has  its  doc- 
trinal, theological  aspect;  but  this  is  not  Christianity  as  a 
dynamic  fact  of  history.  Sociology,  therefore,  is  concerned 
with  Christianity,  not  from  the  doctrinal  point  of  view,  but  as 
a  movement  linking  the  history  of  Israel  to  the  history  of 
the  world. 

Jesus  identified  "knowledge  of  God"  with  doing  the  divine 
will. — In  the  New  Testament,  the  word  for  "knowledge"  is  not 
used  merely  in  the  sense  of  rational,  or  intellectual,  apprehen- 
sion. It  has  also  the  Old  Testament,  prophetic  sense  of 
"conduct."  The  prophet  Jeremiah,  for  instance,  asks,  "Did 
not  thy  father  ....  do  mishpat  and  righteousness  ? — Was  not 
this  to  know  me  ?  saith  Yahweh"  (Jer.  22 : 15-16).  Jesus  not 
only  criticized  conduct,  as  the  prophets  did;  but  he  also  went 
about  "doing  good"  (Matt.  4:23;  Acts  10:38).  He  empha- 
sized the  "doing"  of  good  (Mark  3:4).  He  showed  forth 
"good  works"  from  God  (John  10:32).  So  Paul  agonizes 
to  "do"  good,  and  is  only  able  to  do  it  "through  Jesus"  (Rom. 
7:15-25).  And  so  the  author  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John 
writes,  "Hereby  we  know  that  we  know  him,  if  we  keep  his 
commandments"  (I  John  2:3). 


238  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Thus,  the  old  Hebrew  Bible  and  the  New  Testament  ring 
true  to  the  same  fundamental  theme.  The  more  ancient 
Scripture  says,  "Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way  [i.e.,  his 
doings},  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him 
return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him,  and 
to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon"  (Isa.  55:7).  The 
central  thought  of  this  passage  is  taken  up  into  the  New 
Testament,  and  worked  into  the  immortal  parable  of  the 
Prodigal.  The  erring  son  goes  into  a  far  country  and  leads 
a  bad  life.  But  finally  the  wicked  forsakes  his  evil  doings  and 
resolves  to  do  better.  So  he  returns  to  his  father  and  is 
forgiven.  There  is  no  suggestion  in  the  Bible  religion  that 
acceptance  at  the  hands  of  God  is  conditioned  upon  some 
abstruse  belief  about  matters  that  are  unprovable  in  the  nature 
of  the  case.  Neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  the  New  is 
there  any  call  made  upon  men  to  profess  a  theological  system 
in  order  to  find  peace  with  God.  On  the  contrary,  in  every 
nation,  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh  righteousness,  is 
acceptable  to  him  (Acts  10:35).* 

*The  interesting  problem  of  the  relation  between  the  "man  Jesus"  and  the 
official  Christ  of  the  church  is  one  that  falls  within  the  scope  of  history  proper. 
The  conclusions  drawn  in  the  text  are  independent  of  the  consideration  that  the  official 
Christ  may  be  in  part  the  creation  of  Paul  and  other  interpreters.  Also,  the  discus- 
sion whether  Jesus  was  or  was  not  the  Messiah  predicted  by  the  Old  Testament  has 
only  a  minor  sociological  interest.  The  empirical  fact  is,  that  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  spreads  abroad  in  the  world  "through  Jesus"  in  the  form  of  "Christianity," 
and  that  it  is  propagated  in  no  other  way.  Science  reckons  only  with  facts  and 
relations  between  facts.  From  the  practical  standpoint,  Jesus  is  the  only  "Messiah" 
that  the  world  can  ever  know,  because  the  work  done  by  him,  and  in  his  name  by  his 
followers,  cannot  now  be  done  by  anybody  else.  Through  the  messianic  idea,  Jesus 
was  connected  with  his  own  times  and  his  own  people;  but  his  claim  to  be  the 
Messiah  does  not  rank  with  his  claim  to  be  "one"  with  God.  The  latter  idea  has 
been  taken  up  instinctively  by  the  New  Testament  writers  and  by  the  universal 
church,  and  stated  as  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation;  while  messianism  remains  in 
the  background  of  Christian  thought.  The  emphasis  of  the  church  upon  the  doctrine 
of  the  incarnation  testifies  to  the  significance  of  Jesus  as  the  factor  about  which  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  takes  a  new  start.  The  messianic  idea  stands  for  the  local  and 
the  temporary  in  Jesus;  while  the  incarnation  idea  stands  for  the  universal  and  the 
timeless. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM 

The  Christian  movement  was  not  a  campaign  for  "social  reform'* 
in  the  modern,  scientific  sense. — We  have  already  seen  that 
the  Old  Testament  prophets  were  not  socialists,  and  that  the 
modern  movements  of  radicalism  can  claim  no  sanction  from 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  (supra,  pp.  160-64).  Precisely  the  same 
truth  holds  with  reference  to  the  New  Testament.  Scientific 
study  of  the  Gospels,  the  Epistles  and  other  parts  of  the 
New  Testament  brings  out  the  affinity  of  Jesus  and  his 
followers  with  the  Hebrew  prophets,  and  shows  that  the 
Christian  movement  was  not  a  campaign  for  social  reform  in 
the  modern  sense  of  the  term.  It  is  not  as  a  revolutionary 
and  radical  movement  that  Christianity  comes  before  the 
sociologist.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  Jesus  and  his  followers 
labored  in  the  presence  of  the  social  problem.  So  did  the  Hebrew 
prophets.  This  is  clear  to  the  sociological  investigator  of  the 
problem.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that  the  New  Testament  has 
no  "social"  outlook  in  the  scientific  sense  of  the  term.  It  is 
an  appeal  to  the  individual;  and  it  proceeds  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  when  all  individuals  do  right,  the  world  will  be 
reformed.  No  other  standpoint  would  have  been  possible 
in  that  age.  Only  in  modern  times,  through  much  pain  and 
labor,  has  it  begun  to  be  possible  for  men  to  learn  that  redemp- 
tion is  both  subjective,  or  individual,  and  objective,  or  insti- 
tutional. This  insight  was  not  open  to  the  minds  through 
which  the  religion  of  the  Bible  came  into  being;  and  it  would 
have  been  of  little  use  in  ancient  times.  Christianity  is  not 
a  program  of  political  and  economic  reform,  but  an  inspiration 
to  personal  and  social  righteousness. 

239 


24o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Christianity  attracted  the  lower  classes  at  first  more 
than  the  upper  classes. — Christianity  arose  in  the  midst  of 
a  civilization  in  which  the  social  problem  was  pressing  hard 
for  solution.  All  social  classes,  upper  and  lower,  felt  the  need 
for  salvation  in  one  way  or  another.  But  in  the  Roman 
empire,  as  everywhere,  the  conditions  of  life  pressed  more 
heavily  upon  the  humble  classes  than  upon  their  masters; 
and  the  peculiar  nature  of  Christianity  was  such  as  to  attract 
the  lower  and  middle  classes  at  first  in  larger  proportion  than 
the  upper  class. 

No  straining  of  words,  no  figurative  interpretation,  can 
change  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels  in  regard  to  the  attitude 
of  Jesus  toward  rich  and  poor  (Luke  6: 20,  24,  25;  Luke  18:24, 
25).  He  opposed  the  wealthy  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the 
spirit  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  declaring  that  they  were  the  succes- 
sors of  those  that  slew  the  prophets  (Matt.  23:13-38;  Luke 
20:46,  47).  Our  concern  here  is  not  with  his  "teaching  about 
wealth,"  but  with  his  attitude  toward  the  upper  and  lower 
classes.  His  disciples  were  mostly  humble  folk.  It  appears  that 
the  "common  people,"  or  the  "multitude,"  heard  Jesus  gladly 
(Mark  12:37).  It  is  reported  that  certain  of  the  Pharisees 
asked  whether  any  of  the  "rulers"  had  believed  on  him,  inti- 
mating at  the  same  time  that  he  was  followed  only  by  the 
multitude  (John  7:48,  49).  The  chief  priests  and  scribes  and 
leading  citizens  were  for  a  time  held  back  from  destroying 
him  by  fear  of  the  "people"  (Luke  19:47,  48;  cf.  Luke  20: 19). 
While  he  found  a  few  sympathizers  among  the  well-to-do, 
the  upper  class  on  the  whole  was  hostile  to  him.  When  Chris- 
tianity began  to  spread  abroad  in  the  gentile  world,  as  a 
consequence  of  Paul's  preaching,  the  same  class  distribution  is 
to  be  observed  at  first.  Writing  to  his  converts  at  the  city 
of  Corinth,  Paul  reminds  them  that  not  many  wise  after  the 
flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble  were  to  be  found 
among  them  (I  Cor.  1:26;  7:21).  As  McGiffert  observes, 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM        241 

the  Christian  victims  of  the  persecution  under  Nero  must 
have  been  from  the  lowest  classes,  or  the  emperor  would  not 
have  dared  treat  them  as  he  did.1  The  Christian  church  at 
first,  then,  was  "largely  composed  of  slaves  and  low  people."3 
In  the  early  church,  as  Harnack  writes,  "the  lower  classes, 
slaves,  freedmen,  and  laborers,  very  largely  predominated. 
Celsus  and  Caecilius  distinctly  assert  this,  and  the  apologists 
admit  the  fact.  Even  the  officials  of  the  Christian  church 
frequently  belonged  to  the  lowest  class."3 

But  while  Christianity  began  its  history  hi  the  lower  social 
strata,  there  is  a  noticeable  change  in  the  composition  of  the 
church,  even  during  the  New  Testament  period.  This  fact 
will  occupy  us  in  the  following  chapter. 

1  McGiffert,  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age  (New  York,  1900), 
p.  629;  cf.  p.  267.  Cf.  Orr,  Early  Progress  of  Christianity  (New  York,  1899),  chap.  ii. 

a  Rainy,  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church  (New  York,  1902),  p.  10. 

J  Harnack,  Christianity  in  the  First  Three  Centuries  (London,  1908),  Vol.  II, 
pp.33,  34.  Cf.  Dobschutz,  Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church  (London,  1904), 
p.  303.  The  question  of  the  actual  relation  between  Jesus  and  the  upper  classes  of 
his  day  is  here  taken  up  without  reference  to  what  Jesus  may  or  may  not  have  said 
on  the  abstract  subject  of  wealth.  The  evidence  indicates  a  state  of  sharp  tension 
between  Jesus  and  the  upper  classes  of  his  own  times.  We  agree  with  the  position 
taken  in  the  following  works  on  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  the  social  classes:  Mathews, 
The  Social  Teaching  of  Jesus,  (New  York,  1902),  pp.  136  f.  and  170  f.;  Cone,  Rich  and 
Poor  in  the  New  Testament  (New  York,  1902),  passim;  Rauschenbusch,  Christianity 
and  the  Social  Crisis  (New  York,  1907),  pp.  74-92.  But  we  dissent  from  Peabody, 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question  (New  York,  1900),  pp.  183-225. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 
THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles,  did  not  continue  the  emphasis 
upon  class-relations  between  rich  and  poor. — When  we  leave  the 
Gospels,  and  enter  the  Pauline  Epistles,  a  change  of  atmosphere 
is  at  once  evident.  Paul  was  laboring  to  advance  the  religion 
of  the  Bible  in  the  world  at  large,  among  all  nationalities.  In 
order  to  achieve  this  end,  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  his 
ministry  to  take  the  same  form  as  did  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
This  is  clear.  Jesus  was  the  first  person  in  human  history  to 
embody  the  idea  of  the  Redeeming  God  of  Israel  in  a  human 
life.  He  was  thus  an  example,  or  pattern,  to  be  followed  by 
others.  In  order  to  extend  the  religion  of  the  Bible  on  the  lines 
laid  down  by  Jesus,  it  is  necessary  first  of  all  to  explain  the 
person  and  work  of  Jesus — in  short,  to  "preach  Christ." 
Now,  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles,  was  the  first  person  to 
preach  Christ  to  those  who  were  "alienated  from  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel";  and,  in  his  way,  he  was  just  as  important  to 
the  spread  of  Bible  religion  as  Jesus  himself.  Jesus,  of  course, 
did  not  have  to  preach  in  the  way  that  Paul  did.  For  while 
Jesus  declared  the  gospel  of  God  in  his  own  life,  Paul  could 
preach  that  gospel  only  by  first  preaching  Christ.  Paul  had  to 
create  enthusiasm  for  Jesus  among  the  gentiles;  he  had  to  labor 
until  Christ  was  "formed"  in  them.  This  is  the  fundamental 
ground  of  difference  between  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles. 

The  contrast  which  thus  emerges  between  the  preaching  of 
Paul  and  that  of  Jesus  brings  with  it  important  consequences 
for  the  sociological  study  of  the  Bible:  If  Paul  were  to  do  his 
work  among  the  gentiles,  he  could  not  go  about  opposing  the 
rich  and  favoring  the  poor,  as  Jesus  did.  Paul's  object  was  to 
create  Christ  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  then  let  the  spirit  of 

242 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH  243 

Jesus  do  its  work.  If  Paul  had  raised  the  question  of  rich 
and  poor  in  the  way  his  Master  did,  he  would  have  met  the 
fate  of  Jesus;  and  the  dissemination  of  the  gospel  would  have 
come  to  an  end.  It  is  not  likely  that  all  these  aspects  of  the 
situation  were  clearly  present  in  the  mind  of  Paul;  but  they 
are  nevertheless  the  considerations  that  governed  the  spread 
of  Bible  religion.  Paul  acted  in  the  line  of  least  resistance; 
and  his  course  was  guided  by  the  instinct  of  genius. 

Paul  interpreted  the  gospel  as  a  message  for  all  men,  and  the 
church  as  a  home  for  all  social  classes. — Paul  took  the  standpoint 
that  a  religion  which  proclaimed  "the  brotherhood  of  man" 
must  open  the  door  of  the  church  to  rich  and  poor  alike.  All 
who  received  Christ  could  come  in,  Jew  and  Greek,  barbarian 
and  Scythian,  bond  and  free,  male  and  female:  all  were  one 
"body"  in  Christ  (I  Cor.  12:13;  Gal.  3:28;  Col.  3:11). 
This  doctrine  had  important  consequences  which  Paul  did 
not  foresee. 

As  we  have  already  observed,  Christianity  appealed  at  the 
start  to  the  humbler  social  classes,  rather  than  to  the  mighty. 
The  apostolic  church  evidently  drew  a  large  part  of  its  mem- 
bership from  the  slaves  and  the  poor  freemen  with  which 
the  Roman  empire  abounded.  Various  passages  testify  to 
the  anxiety  with  which  Paul  and  other  New  Testament  writers 
endeavored  to  keep  Christian  slaves  in  order.  In  one  place 
we  read:  "  Slaves,  be  obedient  unto  them  that  according  to  the 
flesh  are  your  lords,  ....  knowing  that  whatsoever  good  thing 
each  one  doeth,  the  same  shall  he  receive  again  from  the  Lord, 
whether  he  be  a  slave  or  a  freeman"  (Eph.  6:5,  8).1  In  other 

JThe  King  James  Bible  uses  the  word  "servant"  for  the  term  here  given  as 
"slave."  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  scholars  who  produced  the  Revised  Bible  say 
in  the  "margin,"  the  word  which  their  seventeenth-century  predecessors  translated 
"servant"  is  more  accurately  rendered  "bondservant."  It  is  clear  that  the  passage 
here  quoted  should  commence  with  such  a  term  in  order  to  agree  with  its  conclusion, 
which  even  the  King  James  translators  could  not  avoid  rendering  "bond  or  free." 
Allowance  ought  perhaps  to  be  made  in  their  favor,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  word 
"servant"  carried  a  lower  social  implication  in  the  seventeenth  century  than  it  does 
now;  but  there  is  no  excuse  for  using  their  translation  at  the  present  time. 


244  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

passages  we  read:  "Slaves,  obey  in  all  things  them  that  are 
your  lords  according  to  the  flesh"  (Col.  3:22).  "Let  as  many 
as  are  slaves  under  the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy 
of  all  honor"  (I  Tim.  6:1).  "Exhort  slaves  to  be  in  sub- 
jection to  their  own  masters,  and  to  be  well  pleasing  in  all 
things,  not  gainsaying,  not  purloining,  but  showing  all  good 
fidelity"  (Titus  2:9).  In  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  we  see 
Paul  sending  a  fugitive  Christian  slave  back  to  his  owner, 
saying  that  he  thought  the  slave  had  wronged  his  master  by 
running  away.  Another  testimony  to  the  presence  of  the 
poor  in  the  early  church  is  found  in  the  anxiety  for  collections 
of  money,  to  relieve  them.  Paul  says  that  at  the  end  of  the 
famous  "Jerusalem  Conference,"  the  apostles  Peter,  James, 
and  John  gave  him  the  hand  of  fellowship,  that  Paul  should 
go  to  the  gentiles  and  they  to  the  Jews,  adding  "only  they 
would  that  we  should  remember  the  poor,  which  very  thing  I 
was  also  zealous  to  do"  (Gal.  2:10).  The  collections  taken 
were  not  to  be  used  for  the  poor  in  general,  outside  the  church, 
but  for  them  that  were  of  "the  household  of  faith." 

But  while  the  church  consisted  at  first  mainly  of  poor  free- 
men and  slaves,  it  included  a  growing  proportion  of  more 
fortunate  people — wealthy  slaveholders  and  landowners.  The 
master  Philemon,  to  whom  Paul  sent  back  the  runaway  slave, 
was  a  beloved  fellow-worker  in  the  gospel,  and  a  member  of  a 
church  that  met  in  his  own  house.  The  little  churches  that 
met  in  private  residences  welcomed  into  their  brotherhood  per- 
sons like  Philemon,  who  contributed  from  their  wealth  to  the 
needs  of  the  new  religious  movement.  A  number  of  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  bear  witness  to  the  increase  of  wealthy 
members  in  the  church.  Christian  slaveholders,  like  Phile- 
mon, are  spoken  of  when  Christian  slaves  are  exhorted  not 
to  despise  "believing  masters"  (I  Tim.  6:2).  Christian  mas- 
ters are  commanded  to  treat  their  slaves  well  (Eph.  6:9).  In 
one  passage  we  read:  "Lords,  render  unto  your  slaves  that 


THE   CATHOLIC  CHURCH  245 

which  is  just  and  equal"  (Col.  4:1).  Thus  it  is  clear  that 
the  upper  classes  began  to  join  the  church  in  growing  numbers. 
Before  the  close  of  the  first  century,  one  of  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  thought  it  well  to  sound  a  note  of  warning 
against  the  favor  shown  by  the  church  to  the  wealthy.  His 
writing  has  come  down  to  us  under  the  title  the  General 
Epistle  of  James;  and  it  was  issued  late  in  the  century,  perhaps 
about  90  A.D.1  His  words  on  the  subject  of  social  classes  are 
as  follows: 

My  brethren,  hold  not  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ....  with 
respect  of  persons.  For  if  there  come  into  your  assembly  a  man  with  a 
gold  ring,  in  fine  clothing,  and  there  come  in  also  a  poor  man  in  vile 
clothing;  and  ye  have  regard  to  him  that  weareth  the  fine  clothing,  and 
say,  Sit  thou  here  in  a  good  place;  and  ye  say  to  the  poor  man,  stand  thou 
there,  or  sit  under  my  footstool;  are  ye  not  divided  among  yourselves, 
and  become  judges  with  evil  thoughts  ?  Hearken,  my  beloved  brethren ; 
did  not  God  choose  them  that  are  poor  as  to  the  world  to  be  rich  in  faith, 
and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  which  he  promised  to  them  that  love  him? 
But  ye  have  dishonored  the  poor  man.  Do  not  the  rich  oppress  you, 
and  themselves  drag  you  before  the  judgment-seats?  (Jas.  2:1-6). 

But  while  the  tendency  thus  indicated  began  to  be  noticed 
even  in  the  first  century,  we  learn  from  the  writings  of  the 
church  Fathers  that  even  in  the  second  century  the  church 
continued  to  be,  in  the  main,  a  lower-class  institution.2  The 
apologetic,  or  defensive,  Christian  writers  of  the  second  century 
endeavored  to  attract  the  upper  classes,  who  possessed  wealth 
and  culture.3 

The  third  century  marked  the  steadily  decreasing  influence 
of  the  lower  class  in  church  life,  and  a  corresponding  growth 
of  aristocratic  tendencies  in  the  Christian  fold.  The  rich 
increased  their  offerings,  and  began  to  leave  property  to  the 
church  by  will.  Gifts  and  legacies  at  first  assumed  the  form 

1  Bacon,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  (New  York,  1902),  p.  165. 
3  Fisher,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  (New  York,  1899),  p.  52. 
a  Rainy,  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church  (New  York,  1902),  p.  90. 


246  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

of  money  and  other  kinds  of  movable  wealth;  but  more  and 
more  the  possessions  of  the  church  included  property  in  land. 
Conditions  in  the  third  century  are  indicated  by  Gibbon  as 
follows : 

Before  the  close  of  the  third  century,  many  considerable  estates  were 
bestowed  on  the  opulent  churches  of  Rome,  Milan,  Carthage,  Antioch, 
Alexandria,  and  the  other  great  cities  of  Italy  and  the  provinces.1 

A  new  religious  institution  is  thus  growing  up  and  changing 
its  form  as  we  follow  it  onward  in  history.  An  interesting 
evidence  of  the  spread  of  Christianity  through  the  upper 
class  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  is  found  in  certain 
resolutions  adopted  by  the  "  Synod  of  Elvira,"  which  was  held 
about  the  year  305.  It  was  declared  that  the  Christian 
landlord  ought  not  to  permit  his  pagan  tenants  to  pay  rents 
in  flesh  and  vegetables  if  these  things  had  been  previously 
offered  to  idols;  and  that  the  Christian  master  ought  not  to 
permit  pagan  slaves  to  keep  idols  on  his  property.2  In  regard 
to  the  same  period,  Hallam  writes: 

It  was  among  the  first  effects  of  the  conversion  of  [the  emperor] 
Constantine  to  give  not  only  a  security  but  a  legal  sanction  to  the 
territorial  acquisitions  of  the  church.  The  edict  of  Milan,  in  313,  recog- 
nizes the  actual  estates  of  the  ecclesiastical  corporations.  Another, 
published  in  321,  grants  to  all  the  subjects  of  the  empire  the  power  of 
bequeathing  their  property  to  the  church.  His  own  liberality  and  that 
of  his  successors  set  an  example  which  did  not  want  imitators.3 

It  is  clear  that  between  the  time  of  Paul  and  the  fourth 
century  a  mighty  change  took  place  in  the  institution  which  we 
call  "the  Christian  church." — In  the  days  of  the  apostle  to 
the  gentiles,  the  church  consisted  of  small  bodies  of  obscure 

1  Gibbon,  Decline  of  the  Roman  Empire  (New  York,  Harper,  1900),  chap,  xv, 
P-  134. 

*  Hefele,  History  of  the  Church  Councils  (Edinburgh,  1883),  Vol.  I,  pp.  154,  424-26; 
Vol.  II,  pp.  186,  301,  306;  Vol.  Ill,  p.  169. 

s  Hallam,  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages,  chap.  vii.  Cf.  Milman,  History  of  Latin 
Christianity  (New  York,  1889),  Vol.  I,  pp.  507-11,  536;  Rainy,  The  Ancient  Catholic 
Church,  p.  278. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH  247 

people,  with  no  comprehensive  organization  throughout  the 
empire,  and  no  regularly  appointed  leaders.  Christianity 
was  a  forbidden  cult;  while  the  recognized  state-religion 
was  pagan.  But  in  the  fourth  century  we  find  the  church 
with  wholly  changed  fortunes.  It  is  now  a  state  institution, 
rapidly  driving  out  paganism.  Its  membership  is  drawn  from 
upper  and  lower  classes  alike.  It  is  divided  sharply  into 
laity  and  clergy.  Its  higher  officers,  holding  great  estates 
of  landed  and  movable  property  in  trust,  are  assimilated  with 
the  secular  upper  class.  In  short,  the  primitive  groups  of 
Christians  were  transformed  into  a  powerful  social  machine — 
the  Catholic  church  of  the  Roman  empire. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 
CATHOLICISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM 

The  Catholic  church  responded  to  the  same  social  forces  that 
shaped  the  organization  of  the  Jewish  church. — In  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, the  priesthood  was  generally  supported  from  church 
funds.1  By  the  sheer  social  momentum  which  it  had  acquired, 
Christianity  was  now  the  religion  of  the  multitude.  Pagan- 
ism was  outlawed;  and  the  new  faith  was  no  longer  a  matter 
of  personal  volition.2  Ritualism  gained  an  importance  com- 
parable to  the  weight  of  ceremonial  practices  under  the  old 
Mosaic  Law. 

Side  by  side  with  the  development  of  the  organization  of  the  Church 
[says  Adeney]  there  went  on  the  increasing  elaboration  of  its  rites  and 

ceremonies There  was  a  growing  approximation  to  pagan  ritual 

in  the  ceremonials  of  the  Church  and  the  feelings  of  awe  with  which  they 
were  approached.3 

Christianity,  indeed,  had  slipped  into  the  place  of  the  old 
heathenism. 

The  tide  of  easy-going  converts  swelled  the  churches  [writes  Rainy]. 
A  man's  Christianity  passed  unchallenged  if,  having  once  been  baptized, 
perhaps  in  infancy,  he  maintained  a  negative  goodness,  joined  with 
some  attention  to  ordinances.4 

Formal  theology  underwent  a  marked  evolution;  and 
Christianity  became  identified  in  the  eyes  of  most  people,  not 
only  with  the  observance  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  with 
acceptance  of  certain  metaphysical  beliefs  about  the  person 
of  Jesus,  upon  which  neither  Jesus  nor  Paul  had  insisted  as  a 
condition  of  salvation.  All  these  things,  then,  grew  up 
together — organization,  ritualism,  dogma,  and  wealth. 

1  Rainy,  op.  cit.,  p.  514.  a  Rainy,  op.  cit.,  p.  520. 

J  Adeney,  The  Greek  and  Eastern  Churches  (New  York,  1908),  pp.  141,  142. 

*  Rainy,  op.  cit.,  p.  300. 

248 


CATHOLICISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     249 

In  terms  of  Old  Testament  evolution,  the  Catholic  church 
became  tinctured  with  "Amoritism." — Again  we  stand  before  the 
great  paradox  which  has  vexed  religious  thinkers  for  thousands 
of  years.  Sociology  takes  no  sides.  Being  a  purely  scientific 
discipline,  it  observes  the  facts  of  social  history  in  an  impartial 
way.  We  have  seen  that  social  institutions  are  swayed  by 
contrary  forces.  The  movement  known  as  Christianity  origi- 
nated in  view  of  the  social  problem,  and  partly  as  a  protest 
against  that  problem.  Jesus  emphasized  the  question  of 
rich  and  poor  in  the  same  way  that  the  earlier  prophets  did. 
But  like  the  prophets,  he  attacked  the  social  problem  from  the 
standpoint  of  individual  sin,  without  putting  forward  a  pro- 
gram of  social  readjustment.  In  Paul's  campaign,  the  pro- 
phetic emphasis  retired  into  the  background;  and  in  time  the 
church  came  under  control  of  the  wealthy. 

This  disposition  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  brought  evil  ten- 
dencies with  it,  of  course.  But  the  result  was  inevitable,  in 
view  of  the  character  of  ancient  society.  The  world  hi  which 
the  church  arose  was  a  pagan  world,  following  many  gods,  and 
pursuing  all  kinds  of  superstition.  Society  was  divided  sharply 
into  upper  and  lower  classes.  The  superior  class  based  itself 
upon  property  in  human  flesh  and  property  in  land.  The 
church  had  no  program  for  the  adjustment  of  these  relation- 
ships. Hence,  it  either  had  to  die,  or  accommodate  itself 
to  ancient  civilization.  Although  the  church  became  pagan- 
ized, it  abolished  the  worship  of  many  gods,  and  concentrated 
the  minds  of  men  upon  the  One  God  of  the  Bible.  It  spread 
abroad  the  idea  of  charity  and  brotherhood;  and  as  the 
Roman  empire  declined,  the  Catholic  church  gathered  up  the 
elements  of  ancient  civilization,  and  became  the  tutor  of  the 
barbarian  races  that  founded  the  modern  world. 

Monasticism  arose  hi  protest  against  ecclesiastical  worldliness, 
and  then  became  institutionalized  itself. — The  accommodation 
of  the  church  to  society  was  resented  by  many  Christians, 


250  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

who  retired  into  country  places  to  live  a  "holy"  life.  These 
persons,  however,  could  not  resist  the  social  impulse.  They 
organized  into  groups  of  monks  and  nuns;  and  the  church 
adopted  monasticism  as  one  branch  of  its  work.  The  monks 
were  of  great  assistance  to  the  church  in  teaching  the  barba- 
rians. They  became  a  part  of  the  upper  social  class;  and  the 
monastic  societies  acquired  property  in  lands  and  serf-slaves. 

The  completion  of  the  Bible  was  incidental  to  the  development 
of  the  Catholic  church. — We  saw  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
completed  under  the  post-exilic  Judaism.  By  a  similar  process, 
the  New  Testament  was  completed  under  Catholicism,  and 
then  added  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  thus  producing  the 
Christian  Bible.  It  is  impossible  to  date  this  process  exactly; 
and  the  matter  of  chronology  need  not  be  discussed  in  the 
present  connection.  The  first  Christians  emphasized,  not 
the  Bible,  but  the  "religion  of  Christ."  Christianity  began 
to  spread  abroad  in  the  world  before  the  New  Testament  was 
written.  It  is  difficult  for  the  matter-of-fact  modern  mind  to 
reproduce  the  ancient  situation.  The  various  "Epistles" 
and  "Gospels"  came  into  existence  as  the  church  developed. 
When  Paul  wrote  his  letters  to  the  churches,  the  Gospels  were 
not  yet  compiled.  When  the  New  Testament  was  at  last 
completed,  the  Bible  as  a  whole  existed  only  in  hand-written 
copies.  There  were  no  printed  books.  The  manuscripts  of 
the  Bible  were  copied  and  multiplied  only  by  great  labor. 
Hence  a  Bible  was  very  costly;  and  so  the  actual  possession 
of  the  Scriptures  was  confined  to  a  relatively  few  persons  in 
the  upper  class.  The  Catholic  church  has  often  been  denounced 
by  Protestants  for  "holding  the  Bible  from  the  people"; 
but  historical  conditions  in  ancient  and  mediaeval  times  make 
it  clear  that  this  judgment  is  largely  unjust. 

Catholicism,  like  Judaism  before  it,  unconsciously  rejected  the 
social  problem. — The  foregoing  study  has  made  it  evident  that 
when  Christianity  assumed  the  institutional  form,  the  resulting 


CATHOLICISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM     251 

organization  could  not  continue  the  emphasis  of  Jesus  upon 
the  social  problem  of  rich  and  poor.  Catholicism,  like  Juda- 
ism, unconsciously  rejected  the  social  problem.  The  same 
principles  apply  in  both  cases.  The  Catholic  church,  like 
the  Jewish  church,  became  an  aristocratic  institution;  and 
only  in  this  form  could  it  have  passed  over  to  the  barbarians. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 
THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  BARBARIANS 

Western  civilization,  like  the  classic  and  oriental  civilizations, 
began  on  the  level  of  nomadic  barbarism. — The  barbarians  of 
Europe  moved  about  in  kinship  groups  under  the  rule  of  clan 
chiefs.  As  numbers  increased,  the  various  clans  and  tribes 
waged  war  in  a  deadly  struggle  to  control  the  physical  resources 
of  the  world.  The  effect  of  war  upon  social  evolution  was  to 
bring  competitive  groups  together  into  larger  groups.  When 
the  curtain  rose  on  the  history  of  Europe,  the  barbarians  con- 
sisted of  numerous  hostile  communities,  which  were  passing 
out  of  the  stage  of  nomadism,  and  settling  here  and  there  upon 
the  soil.  These  communities,  like  their  predecessors  in  the 
great  historic  civilizations,  were  stratified  into  classes;  the 
upper  class  being  free,  the  lower  being  in  bondage. 

The  barbarians  resembled  the  ancient  civilized  peoples 
not  only  in  their  social  machinery,  but  in  religion  as  well. 
They  emerged  upon  the  field  of  history  on  a  pagan  basis. 
Their  beliefs  and  practices  resembled  those  of  other  heathen 
peoples.  It  is  impressive  to  observe  how  human  nature  and 
human  society  obey  the  same  forces  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 
Among  the  barbarians  in  the  forests  of  Germany,  as  among  the 
Romans,  the  Greeks,  and  the  Semites,  religion  lay  within  the 
circle  of  thought  and  activity  that  made  up  the  round  of  daily, 
secular  life.  Each  clan,  or  social  organization,  had  its  own 
god  or  gods;  and  religion  was  a  bond  holding  groups  together. 

Among  the  barbarians,  Christianity  spread  from  above  down- 
ward; whereas,  in  the  Roman  empire,  it  spread  from  below 
upward. — From  the  sociological  standpoint,  the  conversion  of 
the  barbarians  to  Christianity  was  precisely  opposite  to  that 
of  Roman  civilization.  The  upper  classes  in  France,  England, 

252 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  THE  BARBARIANS  253 

Germany,  and  other  countries  were  converted  by  Catholic 
missionaries;  and  then  the  religion  of  the  chiefs  became  the 
religion  of  all.  The  Roman  church  appealed  to  the  barbarians 
as  the  heir  of  a  great  empire  which  had  long  held  sway  over 
the  world.  The  new  peoples  of  the  West  were  not  converted 
in  the  sense  in  which  we  now  understand  that  word;  and  it  is 
more  exact  to  say  that  they  were  converted  to  the  church 
rather  than  to  Christianity.  The  conquest  of  barbarian  pagan- 
ism by  the  religion  of  the  Bible  was  at  first  the  displacement 
of  old  state-religions  by  a  new  state-religion.  The  God  of  the 
Bible,  represented  by  the  figure  of  Jesus  (which  had  now 
acquired  the  "religious  value"  of  God),  was  accepted  by  the 
new  peoples  of  Europe  almost  on  the  basis  of  the  paganism 
which  they  abandoned.  The  heathen  gods  were  displaced  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  system,  with  God  the  Father  at  the  head, 
and  in  connection  with  him  the  Son,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  a  host  of  saints.  The  new  religion  was 
accepted  uncritically.  The  chiefs  no  doubt  saw  something 
better  in  it  than  in  the  old  heathenism;  and  the  masses  pro- 
fessed it  because  their  leaders  did.  In  regard  to  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Germans  we  read  the  following: 

Clovis  was  more  than  a  conqueror,  he  was  also  a  far-seeing  states- 
man;  no  wiser  political  move  was  ever  made  than  when,  in  496  A.D., 

he  determined  to  become  a  Christian The  conversion  took  place 

publicly  and  with  dramatic  effect.  The  king  had  registered  a  vow  that, 
should  he  prove  successful  in  the  battle  of  Tolbiacum  against  the  Alle- 
mani,  he  would  yield  to  the  entreaties  of  his  Burgundian  wife  and  accept 
her  God.  After  the  battle,  with  a  number  of  his  followers,  he  received 

baptism Old  heathen  rites  continued  to  be  performed  under 

the  guise  of  Christian  ceremonial;  and  saints'  images,  like  idols,  were 
carried  round  as  a  protection  against  fire,  illness,  and  death.  It  was  a 
change  of  name,  but  not  of  substance;  Siegfried's  dragon  became  the 
dragon  of  St.  George,  while  the  virtues  of  the  old  goddesses  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  Virgin  Mary.1 

1  Henderson,  History  of  Germany  (New  York,  1908),  pp.  14,  15. 


254  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  conversion  of  the  early  English  people  took  place 
under  practically  the  same  social  conditions: 

Eadwine  promised  to  become  Christian  if  he  returned  successful 
from  Wessex;  and  the  wise  men  of  Northumbria  gathered  to  deliberate 
on  the  new  faith  to  which  he  bowed.  To  finer  minds,  its  charm  lay 
then  as  now  in  the  light  it  threw  on  the  darkness  which  encompassed 

men's  lives Coarser  argument  told  on  the  crowd.     "None  of 

your  people,  Eadwine,  have  worshiped  the  gods  more  busily  than  I," 
said  Coifi,  the  priest,  "yet  there  are  many  more  favored  and  more  for- 
tunate. Were  these  gods  good  for  anything  they  would  help  their 
worshipers."  Then  leaping  on  horseback,  he  hurled  his  spear  into 
the  sacred  temple  at  Godmanham,  and  with-  the  rest  of  the  Witan  em- 
braced the  religion  of  the  king.  But  the  faith  of  Woden  and  Thunder 

was  not  to  fall  without  a  struggle Mercia,  which  had  as  yet 

owned  the  supremacy  of  Northumbria,  sprang  into  a  sudden  greatness 
as  the  champion  of  the  heathen  gods.  Its  King,  Penda,  saw  in  the 
rally  of  the  old  religion  a  chance  of  winning  back  his  people's  freedom 

and  giving  it  the  lead  among  the  tribes  around  it In  655  he  met 

Oswiu  in  the  field  of  Winwed  by  Leeds Victory  at  last  declared 

for  the  faith  of  Christ.  Penda  himself  fell  on  the  field.  The  river  over 
which  the  Mercians  fled  was  swollen  with  a  great  rain;  it  swept  away 
the  fragments  of  the  heathen  host,  and  the  cause  of  the  older  gods  was 
lost  forever.1 

These  examples  of  the  spread  of  Bible  religion  in  Europe 
could  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  Another  passage  relating  to 
England  is  of  profit  in  this  connection: 

The  first  missionaries  to  the  Englishmen,  strangers  in  a  heathen  land, 
attached  themselves  necessarily  to  the  courts  of  the  kings,  who  were 
their  earliest  converts,  and  whose  conversion  was  generally  followed  by 
that  of  their  people.  The  English  bishops  were  thus  at  first  royal 
chaplains,  and  their  diocese  was  naturally  nothing  but  the  kingdom. 
In  this  way  realms  which  are  all  but  forgotten  are  commemorated  in 
the  limits  of  existing  sees.  That  of  Rochester  represented  till  of  late 
an  obscure  kingdom  of  West  Kent,  and  the  frontier  of  the  original 
kingdom  of  Mercia  may  be  recovered  by  following  the  map  of  the 
ancient  bishopric  of  Lichfield.2 

1  Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  Book  I,  chap.  ii. 

2  Green,  op.  cit.,  Book  I,  chap.  ii. 


CHAPTER  XXX 
CATHOLICISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY 

The  authoritative  organization  of  ancient  and  mediaeval  society 
went  along  with  an  authoritative  theology. — In  view  of  the  facts 
already  considered,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  under  the  Catholic 
church  the  religion  of  the  Bible  was  interpreted  as  a  matter 
of  external  authority.  This  religion  was  thought  to  have  been 
handed  down  from  heaven  by  the  Deity,  in  a  miraculous  and 
purely  supernatural  way.  The  only  form  in  which  men  could 
understand  the  Christian  religion  was  that  of  an  "establish- 
ment" ordained  by  God  in  the  same  way  that  kings  issued  their 
decrees.  If  some  hardy  inquirer  had  possessed  the  curiosity 
to  ask  a  church  Father,  or  a  mediaeval  churchman,  why 
the  law  went  forth  from  Israel  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from 
Jerusalem,  he  would  have  encountered  amazement  that  such 
a  query  should  even  be  raised,  and  then  he  would  have  been 
crushed  with  the  reply  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  went  forth 
from  Israel  just  because  God  willed  it  so.  But  such  questions 
were  not  raised.  The  human  mind  was  docile;  and  people 
easily  took  things  for  granted. 

The  church  conformed  itself  to  the  principle  of  external 
authority  when  it  made  terms  with  the  upper  class.  Theology 
went  hand  in  hand  with  sociology.  It  is  not  that  there  was 
any  deliberate  or  conscious  adjustment  of  theological  doc- 
trine to  the  social  situation.  The  church  did  not  say,  "We 
have  the  principle  of  authority  in  social  organization;  and 
therefore  we  must  have  it  in  our  theology."  Matters  never 
work  out  that  way.  The  fact  is  that  the  principle  of  authority 
reigned  over  all  departments  of  life ;  and  so  it  found  expression 
in  theology  without  conscious  effort  on  the  part  of  anybody. 
From  the  conventional  historical  standpoint,  the  principle  of 

255 


256  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

authority  may  of  course  be  viewed  as  an  inheritance  from 
Judaism;  for  the  religion  of  the  Bible  had  been  taught  in 
this  way  by  the  Jewish  church  before  the  time  of  Christ  (chap, 
xxii,  p.  213).  But  under  Judaism  and  Christianity  alike,  the 
dogma  of  theological  authority  has  been  supported  and  vital- 
ized by  the  authoritative  organization  of  society,  in  which 
the  many  have  been  subordinate  to  the  few. 

The  greatest  name  in  Christian  theology,  as  thus  viewed, 
is  undoubtedly  that  of  Augustine,  a  citizen  of  the  Roman 
empire  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  (354-430  A.D.).  This 
theologian  "submitted  himself  absolutely  to  the  tradition  of 
the  Church,"  and  "he  established  more  securely  in  the  West 
the  ancient  ecclesiastical  tradition  as  authority  and  law."1 
He  was  the  master  of  the  Middle  Ages  in  theology.  "The 
history  of  piety  and  of  dogmas  in  the  West  was  so  thoroughly 
dominated  by  Augustine  from  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century  to  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  that  we  must  take  this 
whole  time  as  forming  one  period."2  Thus,  the  idea  of  religion 
as  a  matter  of  external  authority  continued  to  be  the  prevail- 
ing doctrine  throughout  the  Middle  Ages;  and  it  survives 
in  many  minds  up  to  the  present  time.  According  to  this 
view,  the  religion  of  the  Bible  took  its  origin  from  a  revelation 
external  to  the  mind  of  man.  The  inspired  mind  was  an  instru- 
ment by  which  the  Bible-idea  of  God  came  into  the  world; 
such  a  mind  was  a  channel  through  which  common  folk 
received  their  instruction  in  religious  matters.  On  this  view, 
the  men  who  wrote  the  Bible  took  the  part  of  spirit  mediums, 
acting  as  intermediaries  between  heaven  and  earth,  trans- 
mitting messages  from  God  to  man.  From  the  standpoint 
of  this  conception,  there  can  be,  of  course,  no  problem  of 
religion  and  hence  no  problem  of  the  Bible.  This  theory  con- 

1  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma  (Boston,  1899),  Vol.  V,  p.  5  (italics  ours). 

2  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  p.  3.    This  does  not  exhaust  the  significance  of  Augustine  as 
a  thinker;  but  the  other  aspects  of  his  work  do  not  call  for  mention  here. 


CATHOLICISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY          257 

templates  the  religion  of  the  Bible  as  an  ordinance  promulgated 
by  the  Almighty;  and  it  regards  the  Bible  as  dictated  by  God, 
and  hence  "infallible."  A  mantle  of  mystery  was  thrown 
around  this  entire  subject  all  through  the  Middle  Ages: 

During  this  vast  period  one  type  of  exegesis  is  found  throughout  the 

Church In  the  mediaeval  period  of  the  Church,  as  in  the  Tal- 

mudic  period  of  the  Synagogue,  an  orthodox  theology,  resting  on  tra- 
dition which  was  interpreted  and  backed  by  ecclesiastical  authority, 
discountenanced  or  anathematized  independent  investigation  of  Scrip- 
ture.1 

The  general  position  of  the  mediaeval  church  is  well  stated 
in  the  following  words : 

As  the  sole  legatee  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  Church  is  the  pre- 
dominant power  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Outside  of  the  Church  there  can 
be  no  salvation  and  no  science.  The  dogmas  formulated  by  her  repre- 
sent the  truth.  Hence,  the  problem  is  no  longer  to  search  for  it.  The 
Church  has  no  place  for  philosophy,  if  we  mean  by  philosophy  the  pur- 
suit of  truth.  From  the  mediaeval  point  of  view,  to  philosophize 
means  to  explain  the  dogma,  to  deduce  its  consequences,  and  to 
demonstrate  its  truth.  Hence,  philosophy  is  identical  with  positive 

theology The  mediaeval  Church  is  both  church  and  school,  the 

depositary  of  the  means  of  salvation  and  the  dispenser  of  profane  instruc- 
tion. As  long  as  the  people  continued  in  a  state  of  barbarism,  the 
power  which  she  exercised  in  this  double  capacity  was  beneficent, 
legitimate,  and  necessary.2 

1  Gilbert,  History  of  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible  (New  York,  1908),  pp.  146,  179. 
1  Weber,  History  of  Philosophy  (New  York,  1904),  pp.  201,  202,  275. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 
JUSTIFICATION  BY  WORKS 

The  mediaeval  church  was  grounded  on  the  doctrine  of 
"justification  by  works." — The  ruling  tendency  in  religion 
during  the  Middle  Ages  can  be  deduced  from  the  superior 
social  position  of  the  church.  We  have  seen  that  the  clergy 
were  part  of  the  upper  class,  and  that  the  church  machine 
was  part  of  the  state.  The  church  was  therefore  a  cor- 
poration enjoying  "special  privileges."  It  had  an  economic 
advantage,  or  hold,  whereby  it  could  impose  various  kinds 
of  taxes  on  the  people.  It  accumulated  large  landed  estates, 
and  was  therefore  a  landlord.  It  owned  serf-slaves,  and 
exploited  their  labor.  It  operated  the  ecclesiastical  courts, 
which  presided  over  many  matters  now  coming  within  the 
purview  of  secular  law.  It  charged  fees  for  divine  service. 
Since  Church  and  State  were  united,  membership  in  the  church 
was  an  element  of  citizenship,  and  was  therefore  involuntary. 
A  man  was  answerable  to  the  ecclesiastical  powers  in  regard 
to  many  things;  and  he  came  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
church  whether  he  wanted  to  or  not. 

In  order  to  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  the  church,  a  man  must 
give  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  either  labor,  or  money  got 
by  laboring.  Otherwise  he  was  not  right  with  the  church, 
and  therefore  not  right  with  God.  The  church,  represented 
by  its  priesthood,  was  the  intermediary  between  man  and  God. 
From  the  economic  standpoint,  therefore,  the  position  of  the 
mediaeval  church  may  be  described  as  that  of  "justification 
by  works."  This  definition  of  the  church  and  religion  during 
the  Middle  Ages  accords  with  the  superior  economic  and  legal 
place  of  the  church  in  society  at  that  tune.  Although  this 
formulation  had  no  place  hi  the  official  theology  and  would 

258 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  WORKS  259 

have  been  denied  by  the  clergy,  it  states  the  entire  case  from 
the  economic  point  of  view. 

To  give  this  definition  of  mediaeval  religion  is  neither  to 
decry  nor  to  commend  the  church.  All  historians  and  socio- 
logical investigators  admit  that  the  church  included  possibilities 
of  good  and  evil.  The  situation  took  its  course  as  a  matter 
of  historic  necessity.  Wherever  men  have  advanced  from 
savagery  into  civilization,  they  have  passed  through  a  system 
of  sharply  defined  upper  and  lower  classes;  and  religion  has 
been  a  factor  in  political  and  state  life.  Christianity  had  to 
be  established  in  the  world  through  existing  social  institutions; 
else  it  would  have  perished.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  the  church  was  a  great  civilizing  force.  At  the  close  of 
that  epoch,  however,  the  more  progressive  part  of  society  was 
in  religious  revolt;  and  the  protest  against  "justification  by 
works"  was  one  of  the  factors  leading  out  from  the  Middle 
Ages  into  modern  times. 

In  the  concluding  part  of  our  study,  we  shall  examine  the 
Bible  and  its  religion  in  the  modern  world. 


PART  V 
THE  BIBLE  AND  ITS  RELIGION  IN  THE  MODERN  WORLD 


FOREWORD  TO  PART  V 

In  the  closing  division  of  the  study,  we  examine  the  place 
of  the  Bible  and  its  religion  in  the  development  of  modern 
society.  Once  more  the  fact  is  emphasized  that  religious 
questions  have  had  an  intimate  connection  with  secular 
history.  The  practical  use  of  sociological  Bible-study  is 
indicated  hi  this  part  of  the  investigation. 


263 


CHAPTER  XXXII 
PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM 

There  was  at  length  a  great  social  revolt  against  the  mediaeval 
church. — The  movement  known  as  the  "Reformation"  can  be 
treated  as  an  incident  in  social  and  economic  history.  This 
is  not  to  deny  that  Protestantism  and  the  Reformation  can  be 
described  in  spiritual  terms.  We  cannot  understand  history 
until  human  thoughts  are  viewed  in  relation  to  human  life  as 
a  whole.  Not  long  ago  scholars  were  treating  the  Reformation 
as  if  it  were  chiefly  a  matter  of  ideas  and  opinion;  and  although 
recent  investigators  have  corrected  this  mistake,  the  old  idea 
survives  in  the  popular  mind,  and  appears  in  a  great  deal  of 
current  religious  opinion.  "Doubtless  the  social  problem  has 
waited  longer  than  it  ought  for  adequate  formulation,"  writes 
Albion  W.  Small,  "because  many  men  have  believed  too 
implicitly  with  Plato  that  'ideas  make  the  world.'  Such  men 
have  told  the  story  of  history  as  though  it  were  a  ghost-dance 
on  a  floor  of  clouds.  They  have  tried  to  explain  how  spirits 
with  indiscernible  bodies  have  brought  about  the  visible 
results.  They  would  not  admit  that  the  facts  of  human 
association  have  been  the  work  of  flesh-and-blood  men  with 
their  feet  on  the  ground."1  The  older  view  of  the  Reformation 
went  along  with  reluctance  about  admitting  that  men  have 
bodies  as  well  as  minds,  and  that  they  live  on  bread  as  well 
as  upon  ideas.  The  new  view  of  this  great  religious  movement 
is  part  of  the  modern  scientific  interpretation  of  history  as  a 
whole.  It  does  not  claim  that  men  are  only  physical  creatures, 
nor  that  they  live  on  bread  alone;  but  it  combats  the  notion 
that  history  is  a  "ghost-dance  on  a  floor  of  clouds,"  and  it 

1  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  Vol.  V,  p.  518. 

264 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      265 

tries  to  see  material  things  in  their  true  perspective  as  legitimate 
factors  in  human  life. 

From  the  sociological  standpoint,  the  Reformation  was  the 
revolt  of  the  lower  classes  against  the  older  nobility.  Going 
farther,  and  resolving  it  into  terms  of  economics,  the  Reforma- 
tion was  a  protest  against  the  special  privileges  of  the  medi- 
aeval Catholic  church.1  Religious  questions  were  political  and 
economic  issues  at  that  period  because  Church  and  State  were 
united.  Religion,  as  interpreted  by  Catholicism,  was  expensive. 
While  the  outlay  of  capital  on  the  church  had  brought  solid 
returns  in  mediaeval  times,  the  investment  yielded  smaller 
and  smaller  interest  as  the  centuries  rolled  on.  There  were 
mutterings  of  revolt  in  the  Middle  Ages.  The  storm  had  been 
long  gathering  when  it  came  to  a  head  at  the  opening  of 
modern  history,  and  burst  with  terrific  violence.  The  more 
progressive  part  of  western  society  shook  off  allegiance  to  the 
Catholic  church  and  instituted  the  Protestant  churches  of 
Christendom.  The  head  and  center  of  the  Reformation  was 
in  the  rising  merchant  and  manufacturing  classes,  which  had 
been  slowly  differentiating  throughout  the  Middle  Ages;  but 
these  classes  were  aided  by  certain  sections  of  the  agricultural 
peasantry,  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  by  certain  kings 
and  nobles  who  stood  to  profit  by  the  dispossession  of  the 
church  from  its  landed  estates.  In  economic  terms,  the 
Reformation  was  a  protest  against  expensive  religion  in  favor 
of  cheap  religion.  It  opposed  the  doctrine  of  "justification 
by  works,"  which  cost  labor  and  money;  and  it  stood  for  the 
doctrine  of  "justification  by  faith,"  which  cost  nothing.  The 
connection  between  Protestantism  and  the  rise  of  commerce 

1  It  should  be  observed  that  the  mediaeval  Catholic  church  is  not  to  be  identified 
with  the  modern  Catholic  church.  There  is,  of  course,  a  historical  continuity  between 
the  two;  and  the  "official"  position  of  that  church  is  about  the  same  now  as  in  the 
Middle  Ages.  But  the  facts  here  pointed  out  with  reference  to  the  Catholic  church 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  are  not  peculiar  to  the  church.  They  are  facts  of 
human  nature  as  displayed  in  that  particular  situation. 


266  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

and  manufacture  has  been  pointed  out  by  Professor  Thorold 
Rogers,  of  Oxford  University,  as  follows : 

It  cannot  be  by  accident  that  those  parts  of  Europe  which  have  been 
from  time  to  time  distinguished  for  manufacturing  and  commercial 
activity  have  also  been  ....  hostile  to  the  pretensions  of  the 
Church,  and  that  they  have,  when  possible,  revolted  from  it.  It  was  so 
in  Toulouse,  before  the  crusade  of  Simon  de  Montfort  wasted  the  fairest 
part  of  France.  It  was  so  in  Flanders  and  Holland,  in  the  Baltic  towns, 
in  Scandinavia,  and  in  the  eastern  parts  of  England.  It  was  so  in  the 
most  industrious  and  opulent  parts  of  France  in  the  sixteenth  century. 

It  was  not  indeed  so  in  Italy It  was  not  in  human  nature  that  it 

should  willingly  quarrel  with  the  process  by  which  it  became  opulent, 

though  in  the  end  it  paid  dearly  for  its  advantages Nor  again 

can  it  be  by  accident  that  those  countries  which  have  thrown  off  the 
yoke  of  the  Roman  see  were  and  have  been  most  distinguished  for 
intellectual  activity.  The  true  literature  of  modern  Europe  is  almost 
exclusively  the  work  of  those  countries  in  which  the  Reformation  was 
finally  settled — of  England,  of  Holland,  of  northern  Germany.1 

The  beginnings  of  the  Reformation  movement  in  the  Middle 
Ages. — The  absorption  of  land  by  the  church  went  steadily 
forward  all  over  Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages.  It  had 
reached  alarming  proportions  in  England  as  early  as  the 
thirteenth  century  (1200-1300).  A  number  of  statutes  were 
promulgated  at  that  time  to  check  the  abuse.  We  quote 
from  the  statute  of  1279.  The  terms  of  the  law,  even  as 
rendered  in  modern  language,  will  sound  strange  to  the  lay 
reader;  but  the  general  sense  will  be  clear: 

The  king  to  his  justices  of  the  bench,  Greeting.  Where  of  late  it  was 
provided,  that  religious  men  should  not  enter  into  the  fees  of  any  without 
license  and  will  of  the  chief  lords,  of  whom  such  fees  be  holden  immedi- 
ately; and  notwithstanding  such  religious  men  have  since  entered  as  well 
into  their  own  fees,  as  into  the  fees  of  other  men,  appropriating  and 

1  Rogers,  Six  Centuries  of  Work  and  Wages  (New  York),  p.  360.  This  author 
began  his  professional  life  as  a  Church  of  England  clergyman.  Later  he  became  a 
professor  of  economics  in  Oxford;  and  his  pioneering  researches  in  English  economic 
history  earned  for  him  the  dislike  of  the  Tory  classes,  and  prevented  his  re-election  to 
the  chair  of  political  economy  at  Oxford. 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM       267 

buying  them,  and  sometimes  receiving  them  of  the  gift  of  others,  whereby 
the  services  [i.e.,  national  taxes  and  labor]  that  are  due  of  such  fees,  and 
which  at  the  beginning  were  provided  for  defence  of  the  realm,  are 
wrongfully  withdrawn  .  .  .  .  ,  we  therefore,  to  the  profit  of  our  realm, 
intending  to  provide  convenient  remedy,  by  the  advice  of  our  prelates, 
earls,  barons,  and  other  our  subjects,  being  of  our  council,  have  pro- 
vided, established,  and  ordained,  that  no  person,  religious  or  other, 
whatsoever  he  be,  presume  to  buy  or  sell,  or  under  the  color  of  gift  or 
lease,  or  by  reason  of  any  other  title,  whatsoever  it  be,  to  receive  of  any 
man,  or  by  any  other  craft  or  device  to  appropriate  to  himself  any  lands 
or  tenements  under  pain  of  forfeiture  of  the  same  whereby  such  lands  or 
tenements  may  any  wise  come  into  mortmain.1 

The  century  following  the  passage  of  this  famous  law  saw 
the  birth  and  rise  to  eminence  of  John  Wikliffe,  who  has  been 
called  the  "Morning  Star  of  the  Reformation."  Wikliffe  was 
an  English  patriot,  an  author,  and  a  priest  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church.  He  had  a  reputation  as  one  of  the  greatest 
scholars  of  his  time.  We  introduce  a  passage  from  a  book 
which  he  wrote  in  the  fourteenth  century.  This  quotation 
shows  the  economic  views  of  a  man  who  anticipated  the 
Reformation  by  more  than  a  century.  We  give  some  of  his 
terms  in  more  modern  form : 

Secular  lordships,  which  clergymen  have  full  falsely,  against  God's 
law,  and  spend  them  so  wickedly,  should  be  given  wisely  by  the  king  and 
wise  lords  to  poor  gentlemen,  who  would  justly  govern  the  people,  and 
maintain  the  land  against  enemies;  and  then  might  our  land  be  stronger 
by  many  thousand  men  of  arms  than  it  is  now,  without  any  new  cost  of 
lords,  or  taxation  of  the  poor  commons,  [and]  be  discharged  of  great 
heavy  rent,  and  wicked  customs  brought  up  by  covetous  clergy,  and  of 
many  taxes  and  extortions,  by  which  they  be  now  cruelly  pillaged  and 
robbed.2 

It  should  be  emphasized  that  the  economic  aspect  of 
Wikliffe 's  doctrine  was  first  and  foremost  in  his  preaching. 

1  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents  of  English  Constitutional  History  (New 
York,  1908),  p.  71. 

2  Arnold,  Select  English  Works  of  John  Wiklif  (Oxford,  1860-1871),  Vol.  Ill,  pp. 
216,  217. 


268  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  history  going  on  around  him  was  no  ghost-dance  on  a 
floor  of  clouds.  One  of  the  most  careful  students  of  English 
conditions  in  the  time  of  Wikliffe  is  George  Macaulay  Trevel- 
yan,  who  writes  that  "his  demand  for  disendowment  [of  the 
church]  preceded  his  purely  doctrinal  heresies  .  .  .  .  ,  while 
his  attack  on  the  whole  organization  and  the  most  prominent 
doctrines  of  the  Mediaeval  Church  is  found  in  its  fulness  only 
in  his  later  works."1  The  great  Wikliffe  was  not  alone  in  his 
heresy.  There  was  a  strong  party  at  his  back;  and  the 
nation  was  divided.  At  this  period,  indeed,  Europe  was 
beginning  to  glow  with  the  heat  that  broke  into  flame  at  the 
Reformation.  Over  in  Bohemia  the  heresy  of  Wikliffe  was 
propagated  by  John  Hus,  who  was  burned  at  the  stake.2 
Wikliffe  himself  started  an  association  of  poor  preachers,  who 
traveled  about  the  country  disseminating  his  views.  The 
early  stirrings  of  revolt  against  the  established  religious  order 
came  to  be  known  as  the  "Lollard"  movement.  Taking  its 
rise  in  the  fourteenth  century,  it  was  a  factor  of  importance 
more  than  a  hundred  years;  and  it  was  the  beginning  of 
English  Protestantism  and  Puritanism  in  later  centuries. 
We  quote  again  from  Rogers : 

English  Lollardy  was,  like  its  direct  descendant  Puritanism,  sour 
and  opinionative,  but  it  was  also  moral  and  thrifty.  They  who 
denounced  the  lazy  and  luxurious  life  of  the  monks,  the  worldliness  and 
greed  of  the  prelates,  and  the  gross  and  shallow  artifices  of  the  popular 
religion,  were  pretty  sure  to  inculcate  parsimony  and  saving.  By 
voluntarily  and  sturdily  cutting  themselves  off  from  the  circumstance 
of  the  old  faith,  they  were  certain,  like  the  Quakers  of  more  than  two 
centuries  later,  to  become  comparatively  wealthy.  They  had  nothing  to 
spare  for  monk  or  priest.3 

1  Trevelyan,  England  in  the  Age  of  Wikliffe  (London,  1899),  p.  170  (italics  ours). 
See  also  Rashall,  in  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  (New  York,  1909),  Vol.  XXI, 
p. 1127. 

2  Wratislaw,  John  Hus  (London,  1882),  p.  106. 

3  Rogers,  History  of  English  Agriculture  and  Prices  (Oxford,  1882),  Vol.  IV,  p.  72 
(italics  ours). 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      269 

In  the  growth  of  Lollardy  the  Catholics  were  taken  by  sur- 
prise; but  the  ancient  church  had  the  advantage  of  long- 
established  position,  and  it  soon  recovered  itself  and  prepared 
to  meet  its  foes.  By  Catholic  influence,  an  act  against  hereti- 
cal preaching  was  carried  through  Parliament  in  1382.  We 
reproduce  a  part  of  this  act : 

Forasmuch  as  it  is  openly  known,  that  there  be  divers  evil  persons 
within  the  realm,  going  from  county  to  county,  and  from  town  to  town, 
in  certain  habits  under  dissimulation  of  great  holiness,  and  without  the 
licence  of  our  holy  father  the  pope,  or  of  the  ordinaries  of  the  places,  or 
other  sufficient  authority,  do  preach  daily,  not  only  in  churches  and 
churchyards,  but  also  in  markets,  fairs,  and  other  open  places,  where  a 
great  congregation  of  people  is,  divers  sermons  containing  heresies  and 
notorious  errors,  to  the  great  emblemishing  of  the  Christian  faith, 
and  destruction  of  the  laws,  and  of  the  estate  of  holy  Church,  to  the 
great  peril  of  the  souls  of  the  people,  and  of  all  the  realm  of 

England It  is  ordained  in   this  present  parliament  that  the 

king's  commissions  be  directed  to  the  sheriffs  and  other  ministers  of 
our  sovereign  lord  the  king,  or  other  sufficient  persons  after  and 
according  to  the  certifications  of  the  prelates  thereof  to  be  made  in 
the  chancery  from  time  to  time,  to  arrest  all  such  preachers,  and  also 
their  fautors,  maintainers,  and  abettors,  and  to  hold  them  in  arrest  and 
strong  prison,  till  they  will  justify  them  according  to  the  law  and  reason 
of  holy  Church.1  .... 

This  law  proved  to  be  too  mild.  Lollardism  continued  to 
grow;  and  about  twenty  years  later  (1401),  another  statute, 
more  drastic  and  awful,  was  promulgated  by  the  English 
Parliament.  After  giving  a  recital  of  the  situation  in  much 
the  same  words  as  those  used  in  the  previous  act,  the  new  law 
went  on  to  provide  against  heretics  the  penalty  of  death  by 
fire,  "that  such  punishment  may  strike  in  fear  to  the  minds 
of  other  [people],  whereby  no  such  wicked  doctrine  and 
heretical  and  erroneous  opinions,  nor  their  authors  and  fautors 
in  the  said  realm  and  dominions  against  the  catholic  faith, 

1  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents  of  English  Constitutional  History  (New 
York,  1908),  pp.  145,  146  (italics  ours). 


27o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Christian  law,  and  determination  of  the  holy  church,  which 
God  prohibit,  be  sustained  or  in  any  wise  suffer."1 

European  civilization  at  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages  reproduced 
the  social  problem  of  the  ancient  Hebrews. — The  protest  against 
Catholicism  was  of  the  same  general  nature  as  the  ancient 
prophetic  warfare  against  Baalism.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  established  religion  of  the  pre-exilic  Hebrews  became 
identified  with  the  despotic  rule  of  an  upper  class  which 
absorbed  the  landed  property  of  Israel  (Part  III,  chaps,  x, 
xvii-xxiv).  The  Hebrew  nation  arose  at  the  point  of  contact 
between  Amorite  city-states  and  Israelite  clans  from  the 
wilderness.  The  extension  of  Amorite  law  over  the  primitive 
highland  clans  provoked  a  widespread  religious  and  economic 
revolt.  A  legal  and  moral  conflict  was  precipitated  which 
came  to  a  center  about  the  subject  of  property  in  the  soil. 

A  similar  condition  came  to  pass  in  Europe  at  the  close  of 
the  mediaeval  period.  The  kingdoms  of  Europe  arose  by  the 
consolidation  of  nomadic  social  groups.  At  first,  these 
groups  (called  "clans"  or  "tribes")  had  been  organized  on  the 
same  footing  as  the  clans  of  Israel.  Many  of  their  ancient 
customs  persisted  with  the  force  of  law  all  the  way  up  through 
the  Middle  Ages  into  the  time  of  the  Reformation;  and  these 
old  customs  were  slowly  crowded  aside  by  the  extension  of 
Roman  law  throughout  Europe.  On  this  highly  important 
subject,  Lindsay  writes : 

The  universal  testimony  of  contemporaries  is  that  the  gradual  intro- 
duction of  Roman  law  brought  the  greatest  change,  by  placing  a  means 
of  universal  oppression  in  the  hands  of  the  over-lords.  There  is  no  need 
to  suppose  that  the  lawyers  who  introduced  the  new  jurisprudence  meant 
to  use  it  to  degrade  and  oppress  the  peasant  class.  A  slight  study  of  the 
Weisthumer  shows  how  complicated  and  varied  was  this  consuetudinary 
law  which  regulated  the  relations  between  peasant  and  over-lord.  It 
was  natural,  when  great  estates  grew  to  be  principalities,  whether  lay  or 
clerical,  that  the  over-lords  should  seek  for  some  principle  of  codification 
1  Adams  and  Stephens,  op.  cit.,  pp.  168-71. 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      271 

or  reduction  to  uniformity.  It  had  been  the  custom  for  centuries  to 
attempt  to  simplify  the  ruder  and  involved  German  codes  by  bringing 

them  into  harmony  with  the  principles  of  Roman  law But 

when  the  bewildering  multiplicity  of  customary  usages  which  had 
governed  the  relations  of  cultivators  to  over-lords  was  simplified  accord- 
ing to  the  ideas  of  Roman  law,  the  result  was  in  the  highest  degree  dan- 
gerous to  the  free  peasantry  of  Germany.  The  conception  of  strict 
individual  proprietorship  tended  to  displace  the  indefinite  conception  of 
communal  proprietorship,  and  the  peasants  could  only  appear  in  the  guise 
of  tenants  on  long  leases,  or  serfs  who  might  have  some  personal  rights 
but  no  rights  of  property,  or  slaves  who  had  no  rights  at  all.  The 
new  jurisprudence  began  by  attacking  the  common  lands,  pastures,  and 
forests.1 

The  officials  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  instinctively 
arrayed  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  Roman  law.  Augustine 
and  other  great  theologians  of  the  early  church  had  been 
trained  in  Roman  jurisprudence;  and  as  the  social  development 
of  the  European  states  approached  the  level  of  the  ancient 
empire,  it  was  but  natural  for  the  church,  the  heir  of  that 
empire,  to  assist  in  shaping  the  new  European  kingdoms  on  the 
old  Roman  model.  Two  legal  writers  of  great  weight  speak 
as  follows : 

By  the  civil  law  ....  is  generally  understood  the  civil  or  municipal 
law  of  the  Roman  empire,  as  comprised  in  the  institute,  the  code,  and 

the  digest  of  the  emperor  Justinian  [about  530  A.D.] The  body  of 

Roman  law,  or  corpus  juris  civilis,  as  published  about  the  time  of 
Justinian  ....  fell  soon  into  neglect  and  oblivion  [owing  to  the 

conquest  of  the  empire  by  the  barbarians] About  the  year  1130 

....  a  copy  of  the  digests  was  found  at  Amalfi,  in  Italy;  which 
accident,  concurring  with  the  policy  of  the  Roman  ecclesiastics,  suddenly 
gave  new  vogue  and  authority  to  the  civil  law,  [and]  introduced  it  into 
several  nations.2 

Roman  law  entered  upon  its  new  career  in  the  West,  radiating  from 
Italy  over  the  lands  that  lay  north  and  west  of  her  from  the  twelfth  to 

'Lindsay,  History  of  the  Reformation  (New  York,  1906),  Vol.  I,  pp.  107,  108 
(italics  ours). 

3  Blackstone,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England  (New  York,  1890,  Chase's 
ed.),  pp.  46,  47. 


272  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  sixteenth  century.    Thereafter,  Spain,  France,  Holland,  and  Ger- 
many became  the  chief  propagators  of  the  imperial  law.1 

This  legal  point,  of  course,  does  not  exhaust  the  subject. 
It  is  merely  one  way  of  approach  to  a  complex  problem. 
Wherever  we  turn  in  Europe  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation, 
we  encounter  sociological  and  economic  facts  that  remind  us 
of  our  inquiry  into  the  Hebrew  social  question;  and  the  results 
of  the  two  inquiries  confirm  each  other.  Everywhere,  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  we  discover  that  the  high  religious 
excitement  was  accompanied  by  external  social  conditions 
about  whose  nature  and  meaning  there  can  be  no  mistake. 
The  Reformation  as  a  whole  was  a  very  complex  movement, 
involving  an  objective,  material  problem  and  a  corresponding 
inward,  spiritual  problem.  And  since  these  problems  were 
bound  up  so  closely,  the  Reformation  cannot  be  truly  described 
either  in  material  or  spiritual  terms  alone.  In  the  centuries 
immediately  following  that  period,  there  was  no  real  historical 
scholarship;  and  the  spiritual  side  of  the  great  changes  that 
issued  in  Protestantism  was  emphasized  while  the  social 
aspect  of  the  movement  was  overlooked.  Until  very  recent 
times,  indeed,  the  Reformation  has  been  understood  as  little 
as  the  Bible  itself.  This  error  will  be  corrected  as  we  learn 
that  the  collision  between  Protestantism  and  Catholicism 
was  fundamentally  of  the  same  nature  as  the  warfare  between 
the  Yahweh  and  Baal  parties  among  the  ancient  Hebrews. 
"Things  civil  and  things  sacred  were  so  inextricably  mixed 
that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  speak  of  the  Reformation  as  a 
purely  religious  movement."2 

Martin  Luther's  personal  experience  of  Bible  religion  brought 
Protestantism  to  a  center  about  the  doctrine  of  "Justification  by 
Faith." — All  social  changes  need  a  philosophy  of  some  kind, 

'Taylor,  The  Science  of  Jurisprudence  (New  York,  1908),  p.  151,  cf.  p.  46.  Cf. 
Adams,  Civilization  During  the  Middle  Ages  (New  York,  1898)  pp.  33  £.;  Bryce, 
Studies  in  History  and  Jurisprudence  (New  York,  1901),  p.  89. 

a  Lindsay,  History  of  the  Reformation  (New  York,  1906),  Vol.  I,  p.  8. 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      273 

which  will  give  them  a  point  of  departure  and  shape  their 
course.  Otherwise  they  can  be  nothing  more  than  blind 
struggles  ending  in  anarchy.  For  a  long  time,  the  reaction 
of  Europe  against  Roman  ecclesiasticism  was  a  blind  protest 
against  the  claims  of  the  church  to  an  ever-increasing  share 
of  the  world's  wealth.  Unless  the  world  gave  tribute  to  the 
church,  the  world  could  not  be  right  with  God.  This,  of 
course,  was  not  a  matter  of  theology ;  but  it  was  the  practical 
attitude  of  the  church.  In  practice,  the  church  defined  a 
"heretic"  as  a  man  who  would  not  pay  his  ecclesiastical  bills. 
If  he  paid  his  bills,  he  might  believe  anything  at  all  (not  in 
theory,  of  course,  but  in  practice);  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  refusal  to  pay  church  bills  was  the  one,  infallible  sign 
that  a  man's  beliefs  called  for  investigation.  The  church  was 
like  steel  on  the  view  that  there  was  no  redemption — no 
justification — no  salvation — outside  of  its  walls.  The  church 
view  of  redemption  called  for  the  payment  of  money  by  the 
worshiper;  and  this  payment  was  the  solid,  material  sign  of 
adherence  to  the  claims  of  the  church.  The  conservatism  of 
established  ideas  protected  the  church  long  after  Europe  had 
grown  restless  under  the  dominion  of  the  priesthood.  Ideas 
are  like  running  water.  They  cut  a  channel  in  which  they 
tend  to  flow.  So  long,  therefore,  as  the  minds  of  men  were 
possessed  by  the  idea  that  redemption  could  be  had  only 
within  the  walls  of  the  Roman  church,  the  protest  against  the 
economics  of  the  church  could  be  of  little  avail. 

But  the  temporal,  economic  power  of  Catholicism  was  at 
last  broken  by  Martin  Luther,  a  German  monk.  Although 
the  Reformation  itself  is  to  be  described  as  both  a  spiritual 
and  a  material  movement,  Luther's  personal  experience  can 
be  interpreted  only  in  spiritual  terms.  The  changes  that 
occurred  in  his  brain  had  no  conscious  connection  with 
economics.  He  labored  under  a  profound  sense  of  unworthi- 
ness  and  sinfulness;  and  he  went  through  a  long,  bitter 


274  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

struggle  to  find  the  "way"  of  redemption  or  salvation.  He 
wanted  to  be  saved;  and  he  asked  how  he  could  be  justified 
in  the  sight  of  God.  When  he  began  his  quest,  he  believed 
that  salvation  was  to  be  found  somewhere  within  the  walls  of 
the  Catholic  church,  as  he  had  beeta  taught  from  childhood. 
So  he  tried  the  different  ways  of  justification  provided  by  the 
church.  But  the  outward  ceremonies  and  rites  brought  him 
no  inward  peace;  his  heart  was  hungry  and  his  soul  was 
troubled.  If  he  had  been  a  mere  layman,  who  had  to  pay  the 
usual  retail  price  for  the  exercises  of  religion,  there  might  be 
some  ground  for  putting  an  economic  interpretation  upon  his 
experience.  But  Luther  was  himself  a  clerical  person,  a 
"religious"  man  in  the  technical,  Roman  sense;  and  he  got 
his  religion,  so  to  speak,  for  nothing.  Hence,  in  his  case,  we 
are  in  contact  with  an  idea,  pure  and  simple.  The  critical 
point  in  Luther's  experience  came  when  he  began  to  study  the 
Bible.  It  was  an  unusual  and  revolutionary  thing  at  that 
tune  for  a  person  of  religious  training  to  study  the  Bible.  This 
ancient  collection  of  writings  came  to  Luther  like  a  newly 
found  world.  His  discovery  of  the  Bible  can  be  compared 
with  the  discovery  of  America  by  Columbus.  A  new  spiritual 
continent  rose  before  the  vision  of  the  German  monk.  In  the 
Scriptures  he  found  that  redemption,  or  justification,  is  to  be 
had,  not  through  ceremonies  and  rites,  but  through  faith  in 
the  God  of  the  Bible  as  revealed  in  Jesus.  If  a  man  could 
thus  come  into  personal  touch  with  God,  where  was  the  need 
for  a  priesthood  ?  Europe  was  unconsciously  waiting  for  his 
message.  "Its  discontent  was  the  sounding-board  which 
made  his  words  reverberate."1  The  spell  that  the  papacy  had 
thrown  over  the  West  was  broken. 

Bible-study  was   opposed   by   Catholicism,  but  promoted   by 
Protestantism. — Martin  Luther's  use  of  the  Bible  suggests  the 

'Lindsay,  supra,  Vol.  I,  p.  113;    Vol.  II,  p.  16.     Cf.  Preserved  Smith,  Martin 
Luther  (Boston,  1911),  pp.  8-13. 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM       275 

relation  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  Catholic  and  Protestant 
churches  respectively.  The  idea  of  translating  the  Bible  out 
of  the  ancient  languages  into  a  modern  tongue  was  not  original 
with  Luther.  It  had  occurred  many  years  before  to  John 
Wikliffe,  under  whose  leadership  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
had  been  put  into  fourteenth-century  English.  Wikliffe's 
Bibles,  however,  had  to  be  toilsomely  copied  out  by  hand,  for 
as  yet  the  art  of  making  books  from  type  was  unknown.  But 
by  Luther's  time,  the  printer  had  come  to  the  aid  of  the 
scholar;  and  the  Bible  became  one  of  the  "best  sellers"  known 
to  the  book  trade  of  the  modern  world. 

The  attitude  of  the  mediaeval  church  organization  toward 
Scripture  study  was  what  might  naturally  be  expected.  Luther's 
ecclesiastical  superior  in  the  Roman  church  commanded  him  to 
abstain  from  reading  the  Bible;  and  the  men  who  undertook 
to  put  the  Bible  into  modern  languages  found  themselves 
hindered  and  treated  as  criminals  at  every  turn.  William 
Tyndale,  the  first  Englishman  who  translated  and  printed  the 
Bible  in  his  native  tongue,  was  forced  to  leave  the  country 
when  his  plans  were  discovered;  and  the  first  printed  English 
Bible  was  made  in  Germany.1  Later,  after  the  Reformation 
had  been  established  in  England  by  law,  the  Bible  was  trans- 
lated and  published  by  authorization  of  the  King,  who 
appointed  it  to  be  set  up  and  read  in  churches.  In  all  Protes- 
tant countries,  none  surpassed  England  in  the  interest  with 
which  the  people  received  the  Scriptures.  This  wonderful 
collection  of  writings  now  first  began  to  come  before  the 
popular  mind.  The  situation  is  well  depicted  by  Green : 

The  popularity  of  the  Bible  had  been  growing  fast  from  the  day  when 
Bishop  Bonner  set  up  the  first  six  copies  in  St.  Paul's.  Even  then,  we 

1  Pollard,  Records  of  the  English  Bible  (Oxford  University  Press,  1911),  pp.  3ff. 
In  justice  to  the  Catholic  authorities,  it  should  be  observed  that  Tyndale  and  other 
translators  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  did  not  content  themselves  with  a  simple 
rendering  of  the  ancient  text  into  modern  tongues;  but  they  embellished  their  margins 
with  printed  notes  hostile  to  the  Roman  church. 


276  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

are  told,  "  many  well-disposed  people  used  much  to  resort  to  the  hearing 
thereof,  especially  when  they  could  get  any  that  had  an  audible  voice  to 
read  to  them.  ....  One  John  Porter  used  sometimes  to  be  occupied 
in  that  goodly  exercise,  to  the  edifying  of  himself  as  well  as  others.  This 
Porter  was  a  fresh  young  man  and  of  a  big  stature;  and  great  multitudes 
would  resort  thither  to  hear  him,  because  he  could  read  well  and  had  an 
audible  voice."  But  the  "goodly  exercise"  of  readers  such  as  Porter 
was  soon  superseded  by  the  continued  recitation  of  both  Old  Testament 
and  New  in  the  public  services  of  the  Church;  while  the  small  Geneva 
Bibles  carried  the  Scripture  into  every  home,  and  wove  it  into  the  life 
of  every  English  family. 

Religion  indeed  was  only  one  of  the  causes  for  this  sudden  popularity 
of  the  Bible.  The  book  was  equally  important  in  its  bearing  on  the 
intellectual  development  of  the  people.  All  the  prose  literature  of 
England,  save  the  forgotten  tracts  of  Wyclif,  has  grown  up  since  the 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  by  Tyndale  and  Coverdale.  So  far  as  the 
nation  at  large  was  concerned,  no  history,  no  romance,  hardly  any 
poetry  save  the  little-known  verse  of  Chaucer  existed  in  the  English 
tongue  when  the  Bible  was  ordered  to  be  set  up  in  churches.  Sunday 
after  Sunday,  day  after  day,  the  crowds  that  gathered  round  the  Bible 
in  the  nave  of  St.  Paul's,  or  the  family  group  that  hung  on  its  words  in 
the  devotional  exercises  at  home,  were  leavened  with  a  new  literature. 
Legend  and  annal,  war  song  and  psalm,  State-roll  and  biography,  the 
mighty  voices  of  prophets,  the  parables  of  Evangelists,  stories  of  mission 
journeys,  of  perils  by  the  sea  and  among  the  heathen,  philosophic 
arguments,  apocalyptic  visions,  all  were  flung  broadcast  over  minds 
unoccupied  for  the  most  part  by  any  rival  learning.1 

On  its  economic  side,  the  Reformation  took  the  course  fore- 
shadowed by  events  hi  the  Middle  Ages. — During  the  century 
preceding  the  Reformation,  the  peasantry  all  over  Europe  were 
in  a  state  of  restlessness  which,  in  many  localities,  flamed  out 
into  revolt.  The  vast  lower  class,  on  which  the  upper  and  middle 
orders  rested ,  knew  but  little  about  religion .  An  extensive  inquiry 
was  made  into  the  religious  condition  of  the  people  of  northern 
Germany  after  the  revolt  from  Catholicism.  Luther's  experi- 
ence in  the  Saxon  Visitation  was  typical.  After  his  return  he 
prepared  a  "Small  Cathechism,"  in  the  introduction  to  which 

1  Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  Book  VII,  chap.  i. 


PROTESTANTISM  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      277 

he  said,  "The  common  people  know  nothing  at  all  of  Christian 
doctrine,  especially  in  the  villages!  and  unfortunately  many 
pastors  are  well-nigh  unskilled  and  incapable  of  teaching;  and 
although  all  are  called  Christians  and  partake  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament,  they  know  neither  the  Lord's  Prayer,  nor  the 
Creed,  nor  the  Ten  Commandments,  but  live  like  poor  cattle 
and  senseless  swine,  though,  now  that  the  gospel  is  come,  they 
have  learnt  well  enough  how  they  may  abuse  their  liberty."1 
It  was  found  by  Luther  "that  the  only  application  of  the  new 
evangelical  liberty  made  by  many  of  the  people  was  to  refuse 
to  pay  all  clerical  dues."  General  conditions  were  no  different 
in  England.2  The  hostility  of  the  merchant  and  manu- 
facturing classes  everywhere  toward  the  Roman  church  was 
instinctive.  "The  trading  classes  of  the  towns,"  writes  Green, 
"had  been  the  first  to  embrace  the  doctrines  of  the  Refor- 
mation."3 And  we  find  that  "the  religious  reformation  in 
every  land  of  Europe,"  as  Motley  says,  "derived  a  portion 
of  its  strength  from  the  opportunity  it  afforded  to  potentates 
and  great  nobles  for  helping  themselves  to  Church  property."4 
The  situation  in  England  may  be  taken  as  a  type  of  that  in 
all  countries  where  Protestantism  became  the  established  form 
of  Christianity.  The  English  Reformation  began  during  the 
reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth  (1509-1547).  In  his  time  the 
pressure  for  economic  change  became  too  great  to  be  resisted 
any  longer  by  the  Roman  church  in  England.  The  vast 
landed  property  of  the  church  was  transferred  by  act  of 
Parliament  into  the  hands  of  the  King,  who  turned  most  of 
it  over  to  the  nobility.  Green  writes: 

The  bulk  of  these  possessions  were  granted  lavishly  away  to  the 
nobles  and  courtiers  about  the  King,  and  to  a  host  of  adventurers  who 
"had  become  gospellers  for  the  abbey  lands."  Something  like  a  fifth  of 

1  Lindsay,  op,  cit,,  I,  p.  409. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  405,  406. 

3  Green,  op.  cit.,  Book  VI,  chap.  v. 

*  Motley,  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic  (Philadelphia,  McKay),  Vol.  I,  p.  272. 


278  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  actual  land  in  the  kingdom  was  in  this  way  transferred  from  the 
holding  of  the  Church  to  that  of  nobles  and  gentry.  Not  only  were 
the  older  houses  enriched,  but  a  new  aristocracy  was  erected  from 
among  the  dependants  of  the  Court.  The  Russells  and  the  Cavendishes 
are  familiar  instances  of  families  which  rose  from  obscurity  through  the 
enormous  grants  of  Church-land  made  to  Henry's  courtiers.1 

1  Green,  History  of  the  English  People,  Book  VI,  chap.  i.  Cf .  Froude,  History  of 
England  (New  York,  1873),  Vol.  Ill,  p.  359;  Vol.  VII,  pp.  u,  40.  Cf.  "Cambridge 
Modern  History,"  Vol.  II,  The  Reformation  (New  York,  1904). 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 

PROTESTANTISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY 

Protestantism,  at  the  time  of  its  legal  establishment,  was  based 
upon  the  union  of  Church  and  State. — When  the  Protestants 
broke  away  from  Catholicism,  this  great  revolution  was  accom- 
plished by  law.  The  Protestant  states,  in  their  corporate 
capacity  as  "social  groups,"  had  to  dispossess  the  Roman 
church  of  its  property,  and  make  the  old  forms  of  worship 
illegal.  Furthermore,  such  principles  as  the  toleration  of 
different  views,  and  the  liberty  of  conscience,  were  unknown 
to  the  world  at  that  time.  So  the  Protestant  states  had  to 
make  legal  provision  for  churches  of  their  own.  As  a  conse- 
quence, the  churches  of  the  Reformation  slipped  into  the  place 
of  the  banished  Romanism.  These  considerations  prepare  us 
to  see  that  Protestantism,  at  first,  held  the  same  position  in 
the  social  body  as  did  Catholicism,  Judaism,  and  paganism. 
It  was  the  religion  of  the  state,  or,  as  it  is  called  in  England, 
the  "  established  "  worship.  Although  the  external  forms  and 
circumstances  were  different,  the  sociological  meaning  of 
Protestantism  was  everywhere  the  same.  Church  and  State 
were  everywhere  united;  and  all  the  people  of  a  state  were 
compelled  to  support  the  local  church.  The  historian  Froude 
writes:  "The  Council  of  Geneva,  the  General  Assembly  at 
Edinburgh,  the  Smalcaldic  League,  the  English  Parliament, 
and  the  Spanish  Inquisition  held  the  same  opinions  on  the 
wickedness  of  heresy;  they  differed  only  in  the  definition  of 
the  crime."1 

The  Protestant  clergy,  therefore,  held  a  position  as  high  as 
the  Catholic  priesthood;  and  in  practice  they  made  as  lofty 
claims  to  respect  as  did  the  ministers  of  the  Roman  church. 

1  Froude,  History  of  England  (New  York,  1873),  Vol.  Ill,  p.  311. 

279 


28o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

They  were  appointed  by  officials  whose  authority  was  derived 
from  the  state;  and  they  could  be  deprived  of  office  by  the 
same  power.  A  good  illustration  is  found  in  the  famous 
Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  were  set 
forth  by  national  law  in  the  year  1562.  Article  23  declares: 
"Those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be 
chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have  public  author- 
ity given  unto  them  in  the  Congregation,  to  call  and  send 
Ministers  into  the  Lord's  Vineyard."1  John  Calvin's  view  of 
the  ministry  was  even  higher  than  this,  for  in  his  Institutes  of 
the  Christian  Religion  he  laid  down  the  principle  that  the 
clergy  ought  to  rule  all  mankind  within  the  terms  of  a  theoc- 
racy. His  autocratic  tendencies  were  checked  by  the  civil 
power;2  but  the  prevailing  union  of  Church  and  State  made 
the  church  an  engine  of  public  authority. 

Protestantism,  like  the  Jewish  and  Catholic  churches,  viewed 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  as  ordained  by  external  divine  authority. 
— Since  Protestantism  at  first  occupied  the  same  social  position 
as  the  older  forms  of  worship,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  Reforma- 
tion churches  necessarily  started  out  by  taking  the  ancient 
view  of  the  Bible  and  its  religion.  "Orthodox"  theology  was 
demanded  alike  by  the  social  and  the  mental  constitution 
of  early  Protestantism.  The  idea  of  natural,  evolutionary 
development  of  religious  belief  was  unthinkable  at  that  period 
of  human  history,  and  was  unknown  to  the  Protestant  world 
for  many  generations. 

It  is  a  curious,  but  explainable,  fact  that  the  Reformation 
churches  did  not  at  once  perceive  the  logic  of  their  position 
with  reference  to  the  Bible.  On  the  one  hand,  the  whole 
Reformation  movement  was  an  economic  movement,  directed 
by  the  civil  powers  of  the  Protestant  states;  and  these  powers 
considered  their  authority  to  be  inherent  in  themselves.  On 

1  Schaff,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom  (New  York,  1899),  Vol.  Ill,  p.  501  (italics  ours). 
'Lindsay,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  in,  127,  128,  129. 


PROTESTANTISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY       281 

the  other  hand,  looking  at  the  matter  from  the  religious  point 
of  view,  the  Reformers  did  not  think  of  themselves  as  really 
breaking  with  the  church  of  God.  They  had  been  trained  in 
Catholicism  to  regard  the  church  institution  itself  as  authori- 
tative; and  they  unconsciously  took  this  view  over  into  then- 
own  ecclesiastical  organizations,  which  they  looked  upon  as 
the  "true  church."  Hence,  we  encounter  the  paradox  that 
the  more  spiritually  minded  of  the  Reformers,  like  Martin 
Luther,  treated  the  Bible  with  more  freedom  than  the  ration- 
alistic Reformers  of  Calvin's  type.  Although  Luther  held  the 
Bible  to  be  in  a  general  way  "  the  Word  of  God,"  he  emphasized 
the  believer's  personal  experience  of  God  through  Christ,  and 
considered  himself  at  liberty  to  choose  and  criticize  among 
the  sacred  books  with  considerable  freedom.1  The  Lutheran 
tendency,  however,  was  gradually  counteracted  by  the 
influence  of  Calvinism,  which  made  itself  more  and  more  felt 
among  the  Protestant  churches  of  all  countries,  even  in  Ger- 
many. Calvin's  type  of  thought  was  rationalistic,  systematic, 
and  legalistic;  and  it  corresponded  more  harmoniously  than 
Lutheranism  with  the  existing  social  constitution  of  the 
world.  Monarchy  was  the  order  of  the  day;  and  Calvin 
pictured  God  as  an  Absolute  Ruler,  whose  sovereignty  was 
more  despotic  and  awful  than  that  of  the  most  potent 
human  king  or  emperor.  Setting  out  from  a  few  principles, 
Calvin  deduced  a  logical  and  orderly  system  of  divinity; 
and  his  formulas  had  enormous  influence  in  shaping  Protes- 
tant theology.  Although  Calvin  urged  a  lofty  place  for  the 
ministry,  he  was  careful  to  say  that  they  should  rule  man- 
kind "in  the  Word  of  God" — that  is,  in  the  Scriptures.  He 
thought  the  words  of  the  Bible  should  be  received  by  men  as 
if  God  himself  uttered  these  words  into  the  ear  of  the  reader. 
"The  exegesis  of  Calvin,"  as  Gilbert  says,  "was  fatally 
defective  in  that  it  subordinated  Scripture  to  the  dogmas  of 

1  Preserved  Smith,  Martin  Luther  (Boston,  1911),  pp.  263-70. 


282  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

the  church."1  On  the  increasing  dogmatism  and  appeal  to 
external  authority  in  Protestant  theology,  several  writers 
make  the  following  statements: 

More  and  more,  as  the  first  generation  of  Protestant  leaders  recedes 
into  the  past,  the  theology  of  those  who  come  after  passes  into  the 

scholastic  stage The  Bible  was  looked  upon  as  an  authoritative 

text-book,  from  which  doctrines  and  proofs  of  doctrine  were  to  be 
drawn  with  little  or  no  discrimination  as  to  the  use  to  be  made  of  the 
different  sacred  books.  Such  were  the  ramifications  of  the  system  that 
little  if  any  space  was  left  for  varieties  of  opinion,  and  dissent  upon 

any  point  was  treated  as  a  heresy The  impression  often  made 

was  that  of  a  divine  absolutism  enthroned  in  the  souls  of  men  as  well  as 
in  the  visible  world  of  creatures.3 

The  Protestant  Reformation  was  mediaeval,  not  modern,  in  its  spirit 

and  interest Bondage  to  an  external  law  of  faith,  and  practice 

was  for  a  long  time  as  complete  in  Protestantism  as  in  Catholicism,  and 
the  one  was  as  conservative  in  the  field  of  religious  thought  as  the 
other. 

In  their  effort  to  guarantee  the  absolute  infallibility  of  the  Bible 
some  of  the  theologians  of  the  day  were  carried  to  the  furthest  possible 
lengths.  The  Bible  is  not  in  any  sense  a  human  book;  it  is  the  literal 
word  of  God  in  all  its  parts,  having  been  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  men  acting  only  as  amanuenses.  Who  the  author  of  this  or  that 
book  might  be  was  of  no  consequence,  and  all  questions  as  to  date  and 
circumstances  of  composition,  or  as  to  authenticity  and  integrity  became 
unimportant  and  irrelevant.  Not  simply  is  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  or 
the  truths  which  it  contains,  from  God,  but  every  phrase,  word,  and 
letter,  including  even  the  vowel  points  of  the  Hebrew  Massoretic  text. 
It  is  infallible,  not  alone  in  the  sphere  of  religion  and  morals,  but  in 
history,  geography,  geology,  astronomy,  and  every  other  field  upon 
which  it  touches.3 

By  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  structure  of  scriptural 
interpretation  had  become  enormous.  It  seemed  destined  to  hide  for- 
ever the  real  character  of  our  sacred  literature  and  to  obscure  the 
great  light  which  Christianity  had  brought  into  the  world.  The  Church, 

'Gilbert,  Interpretation  of  the  Bible  (New  York,  1908),  p.  213;  cf.  pp.  218, 
219,  233- 

*  Fisher,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  (New  York,  1899),  p.  347. 

*  McGiffert,  Protestant  Thought  Before  Kant  (New  York,  1911),  pp.  186,  147. 


PROTESTANTISM  AS  EXTERNAL  AUTHORITY        283 

Eastern  and  Western,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  was  content  to  sit  in  its 
shadow,  and  the  great  divines  of  all  branches  of  the  Church  reared  every 
sort  of  fantastic  buttress  to  strengthen  or  adorn  it.  It  seemed  to  be 
founded  for  eternity.1 

These  tendencies  and  views  prevailed  wherever  Protestant- 
ism established  itself.  In  Europe,  and  in  the  new  communities 
of  America  and  the  other  colonial  possessions,  the  Bible  and 
its  religion  were  taken  to  be  the  products  of  an  absolute  and 
infallible  verbal  inspiration.  The  ideas  and  laws  by  which 
Israel  was  distinguished  from  the  surrounding  heathenism 
were  believed  to  have  been  put  into  human  history  amid  the 
smoke,  flame,  and  thunder  of  Sinai.  There  was  no  more 
disposition  to  doubt  the  older  theory  than  there  was  to  question 
whether  one  and  one  made  two.  The  authoritative  con- 
ception monopolized  the  field.  The  Bible  and  its  religion 
were  practically  regarded  as  the  outcome  of  a  spiritistic  stance 
on  a  grand  scale,  in  which  God  imparted  messages  through  the 
medium  of  certain  Hebrews,  and  authenticated  these  com- 
munications by  a  display  of  supernatural  marvels.2  This 
theory  was  held  by  the  Lutheran  pastor,  the  English  rector, 
the  preacher  in  the  Scotch  kirk,  the  Methodist  elder,  the 
Congregational  minister,  and  all  other  Protestant  clergymen 
and  laymen.  Moreover,  it  was  professed  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  and  Greek  churches,  and  by  the  Jewish  synagogues. 
It  took  its  rise  in  the  ancient  world,  on  the  basis  of  habits  of 
thought  common  to  the  Jews  and  their  heathen  contemporaries. 
It  was  held  by  the  biblical  authors  themselves  (who  wrote  after 
the  event);  its  reign  was  undisputed  in  the  Middle  Ages  of 
Christendom;  and  it  has,  in  fact,  largely  prevailed  throughout 
modern  history.  It  ruled,  of  course,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  (150x5-1600) ;  and  the  same  can 

1  White,  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christendom  (New  York, 
1896),  Vol.  II,  p.  311. 

2  Exception  has  been  taken  to  the  "stance"  figure  as  a  caricature  of  orthodoxy; 
but  it  certainly  represents  the  older  view. 


284  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

fairly  be  said  of  the  seventeenth  century  (1600-1700),  despite 
the  critical  work  of  such  men  as  Spinoza  and  Simon.  In 
harmony  with  the  spirit  of  orthodox  Protestantism,  the 
seventeenth  century  saw  the  production  of  what  is  even  yet 
the  most  popular  of  all  English  renderings  of  the  Bible,  a 
translation  "authorized"  by  a  monarchical  British  govern- 
ment. The  King  James  Version  was  thus  published  by 
"authority,"  and  "appointed  to  be  read  in  churches."1 

1  Among  those  who  prefer  this  version  of  the  Bible,  few  can  tell  who  "authorized" 
it,  or  why  it  was  published.  The  reader  is  duly  impressed  by  its  "authority,"  and  in 
most  cases  no  doubt  imagines  the  authority  to  be  something  mysterious  and  peculiar 
to  itself.  By  the  same  token,  the  partisan  of  the  King  James  Bible  is  opposed  to 
modern  "revised"  versions,  and  usually  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  King  James  Bible 
describes  itself  on  the  title-page  as  "diligently  compared  with  former  translations," 
and  "revised." 


CHAPTER  XXXIV 

PROTESTANTISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM 

Orthodox  Protestantism  reproduced  the  attitude  of  the  Jewish 
and  Catholic  churches  toward  the  social  problem. — We  have  seen 
that  Judaism  and  Catholicism  took  form  in  periods  of  great 
social  tension,  and  that  they  endeavored  to  save  the  world  by 
a  legalistic  redemption  of  the  individual.  In  this  way,  they 
tacitly  denied  the  existence  of  a  social  problem,  and  prepared 
for  their  own  loss  of  influence.  It  now  becomes  our  duty  to 
observe  that  the  evolution  of  Protestantism  went  forward  in 
obedience  to  the  same  law  of  history. 

Aided  by  the  opening  of  new  land  in  America,  the  reorgani- 
zation of  European  society  which  took  place  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation  practically  solved  the  social  problem  of  that  age. 
But  as  modern  history  took  its  course,  and  century  followed 
century,  the  problem  of  social  adjustment  began  once  more  to 
press  for  solution.  The  emergence  of  the  modern  social 
problem  is  indicated  by  various  events.  Notable  among  these 
are  the  English  commonwealth  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the 
French  and  American  Revolutions  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
the  European  uprisings  in  the  mid-nineteenth  century,  and  the 
progress  of  socialism  down  to  the  present  hour. 

Along  with  the  profound  social  changes  indicated  by  these 
important  historical  facts,  the  Protestant  churches  went 
through  an  evolution  identical  with  that  which  took  place  in 
the  Jewish  and  Catholic  churches.  We  saw  that  these  older 
ecclesiastical  institutions  became  identified  with  the  upper 
social  class;  and  the  same  situation  is  illustrated  by  the  new 
churches  that  arose  out  of  the  Reformation.  Although 
Protestantism  derived  its  propelling  motives  from  the  dis- 
content of  all  classes  with  Romanism,  the  actual  break  with 

285 


286  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Rome  was  engineered  by  the  ruling  authorities  in  the  various 
Protestant  states;  and  this  means  that  the  churches  of  the 
Reformation  were  instituted,  not  by  the  "people"  in  the 
democratic  sense,  but  by  the  upper  classes.  The  logic  of  the 
origin  of  Protestantism  went  with  it  from  the  start.  Being  an 
upper-class  institution,  it  soon  began  to  alienate  the  lower  and 
middle  classes.  A  number  of  considerations  worked  together 
toward  this  result.  The  repudiation  of  papal  authority,  and 
the  lack  of  entire  harmony  among  the  Protestant  sects, 
were  the  signs  of  a  new  independence  of  thought.  Among  the 
educated  classes,  this  led  toward  agnosticism  and  atheism, 
which  were  decidedly  new  phenomena,  for  until  modern  times 
all  classes  of  people,  Christian  and  pagan,  had  agreed  that 
there  were  gods  of  some  sort.  On  the  other  hand,  the  lower 
social  class,  troubled  by  the  pressure  of  poverty,  fell  into 
indifference.  The  tendency  of  Protestantism,  therefore,  was 
to  confine  the  organized  life  of  religion  within  the  upper  classes 
which  had  established  the  Reformation;  and  while  the  vast 
lower  class  was  drifting  slowly  away,  the  new  churches  moved 
steadily  into  a  dogmatic  legalism  which  reproduced  the  spirit 
of  the  Jewish  and  Catholic  churches. 

Protestant  legalism  came  to  a  center  about  the  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Jesus. — The  churches  of  the  Reformation  declared, 
with  increasing  emphasis,  that  salvation  depended  upon  the 
acceptance  of  certain  doctrines  about  the  person  and  work  of 
Jesus.  The  Old  Testament  was  interpreted  as  a  huge  "type," 
or  "figure,"  of  Christ;  and  it  was  resorted  to  as  an  arsenal  of 
proof -texts  in  a  way  which  drove  all  vitality  out  of  that  most 
interesting  and  vivid  collection  of  documents.  Building  up 
mainly  from  Paul's  utterances  about  Jesus,  Protestantism 
constructed  a  metaphysical  Christianity  which  took  the  form 
of  pure  legalism.  God  was  viewed  as  the  Chief  Justice  of  a 
Supreme  Court  in  which  redemption  was  purchased  by  a 
mysterious  potency  residing  in  the  work  of  Christ.  The 


PROTESTANTISM  REJECTS  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM      287 

believer  availed  himself  of  the  redemptive  merits  of  Christ  by 
accepting  Jesus  in  a  metaphysical,  divine  character  as  the 
Savior.  This,  of  course,  was  not  the  teaching  of  Jesus  himself, 
who,  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal,  and  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  had  little  or  nothing  in  common  with  orthodox  Protes- 
tantism. But  the  Reformation  churches,  held  fast  in  the  grip 
of  social  forces  which  they  did  not  understand,  lost  sight  of  the 
Bible  itself  amid  a  rank  upgrowth  of  doctrines  about  the  Bible. 
The  parallel  between  scholasticism  in  the  Protestant,  Catholic, 
and  Jewish  churches  was  thus  complete.1 

Orthodox  Protestantism  resolved  salvation  into  a  purely 
individual  process.  According  to  this  view,  the  world's 
troubles  were  to  be  cured  by  the  reformation  of  individual 
sinners.  If  the  individual  was  redeemed,  then  the  world  at 
large  could  be  rescued  by  spiritual  arithmetic,  through  the 
simple  addition  of  one  soul  after  another  to  the  mass  of  the 
redeemed.  Whether  or  not  one  agrees  with  legalistic  Protes- 
tantism upon  the  exact  "method"  of  saving  the  individual,  it 
would  be  manifest  folly  to  deny  the  abstract  proposition  that 
sinners  need  to  be  saved,  and  that  bad  people  should  be 
reformed.  In  emphasizing  this  fact,  Protestantism  occupies 
an  impregnable  position.  But  this  is  also  the  claim  of  the 
Jewish  and  Catholic  churches.  These  other  ecclesiastical 
bodies  agree  with  orthodox  Protestantism  that  we  need  better 
men  and  women.  The  only  difference  between  them  lies  in 
their  conception  of  the  legal  process  of  redemption.  But  the 
process  in  each  case  is  purely  a  matter  of  individual  salvation; 
and  hence,  from  the  sociological  standpoint,  all  three  churches 
are  in  the  same  category. 

The  decline  of  orthodox  Protestantism  is  due  to  its  emphasis 
upon  individual  rescue  as  the  only  method  of  redemption. — 
Although  the  doctrine  of  personal  salvation  is  profoundly 

1  For  Protestant  confessions  of  faith,  see  Schaff ,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom  (New 
York),  Vol.  III.  In  studying  these  creeds,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  took 
form  in  the  upper  social  class,  and  were  established  by  "authority." 


288  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

true,  it  may  be  handled  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  false.  To 
insist  that  individual  redemption  is  the  one,  sovereign  method 
of  reform,  is  to  claim  in  effect  that  there  is  no  "  social "  problem, 
in  the  scientific  sense,  and  is  to  ignore  the  fact  that  society,  as 
an  organized  "group,"  may  also  be  a  sinner.  In  other  words, 
orthodox  Protestantism  practically  discounts  the  existence  of 
social  institutions,  and  sets  up  the  doctrine  that  society  is  a 
crowd,  like  the  grains  of  sand  in  a  heap :  reform  each  individual, 
and  the  world  is  saved.  Protestantism  has  thus  rejected  the 
social  problem  as  clearly  as  did  its  great  historic  predecessors, 
the  Catholic  and  the  Jewish  churches. 

Before  considering  the  relation  of  sociological  Bible-study 
to  the  modern  world,  it  is  necessary  to  discuss  two  further 
topics,  the  rise  of  scientific  investigation  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
modern  separation  of  Church  and  State.  Social  development 
is  a  complex  interweaving  of  many  tendencies;  and  while  we 
long  to  settle  the  problems  of  history  by  some  brief  and 
expeditious  method,  the  actual  course  of  social  evolution 
demands  the  exercise  of  much  patience. 


CHAPTER  XXXV 
MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  BIBLE-STUDY 

This  chapter  is  not  a  history,  but  an  estimate. — This  chapter 
stands  in  its  present  position  as  an  item  in  the  general  argu- 
ment, and  not  as  an  essay  on  the  development  of  scientific 
biblical  scholarship.  It  is  not  a  history  of  modern  investiga- 
tion of  the  Bible;  it  is  a  brief  appraisal  of  the  meaning  and 
value  of  higher  criticism  in  the  pre-sociological  stage.  The 
significance  of  sociological  Bible-study  will  be  considered  in 
the  closing  chapter.  At  present  we  shall  speak  only  of  the 
literary  and  historical  forms  of  criticism  as  developed  in  the 
WeUhausen  school,  and  accepted  in  the  leading  centers  of 
academic  learning.1 

The  general  attitude  of  this  book  toward  scientific  Bible- 
study  is  made  clear  by  the  previous  chapters.  We  have  seen 
that  the  higher  criticism  is  part  of  the  intellectual  awakening 
which  leads  from  the  Middle  Ages  into  the  modern  world,  and 
that  the  literary  and  historical  forms  of  criticism  are  a  neces- 
sary introduction  to  all  scientific  study  of  the  Bible.  We  shall 
now  look  at  scientific  Bible-study,  not  as  an  academic  matter, 
but  as  one  of  the  influences  in  the  complex  development  of 
modern  life. 

Scientific  Bible-study  has  largely  replaced  the  legal  view  of 
redemption  by  the  moral  view. — When  we  investigate  the  bearing 
of  modern  biblical  scholarship  on  religious  ideas,  we  are  at 
once  confronted  by  a  problem  which  criticism  has  hardly 
touched,  and  which  in  fact  lies  outside  of  its  domain.  Leaving 
the  mysteries  of  documentary  analysis  and  historical  recon- 

1  The  facts  in  regard  to  the  history  of  modern  scientific  Bible-study  are  on  record 
in  easily  accessible  form;  and  we  have  referred  to  them  briefly  in  earlier  portions  of 
this  work.  (See  Prefatory.) 

289 


29o  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

struction  behind,  we  pass  over  into  the  field  of  ethics  or 
morality.  The  new  scholarship  clears  away  the  legalistic  idea 
of  Bible  religion,  and  brings  the  great  moral  problem  before 
us.  Scientific  investigation  has  indeed  swept  aside  the  mass 
of  legalism  and  supernaturalism  that  has  obscured  the  Bible; 
and  it  has  thus  laid  open  the  moral  questions  that  underlie 
the  history  of  Israel.  Science  has  pointed  to  the  prophets  as 
the  great,  central  figures  in  the  development  of  Bible  religion; 
it  has  demonstrated  that  the  prophets  were  moral  teachers; 
and  it  has  pointed  out  that  the  work  of  Jesus  builds  up  from 
the  work  of  the  prophets.  Consequently,  in  the  mind  of  the 
modern  scholar,  the  legalistic  interpretation  of  Christianity 
and  the  Bible  has  passed  away,  giving  place  to  a  more  natural, 
understandable,  and  reasonable  view.  Modern  scientific 
Bible-study,  then,  has  not  only  an  academic  meaning;  it  has 
a  practical  value  as  well.  It  has  shown  that  religion  stands 
directly  connected  with  great  historical  movements  and  every- 
day problems.  Until  this  was  accomplished,  no  further 
advance  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  and  its  religion  would  have 
been  possible. 

Thus  far,  most  men  of  critical  scholarship,  like  men  of 
"orthodox"  training,  have  treated  redemption  from  the  standpoint 
of  individualism. — The  contemporary  higher  critic,  whether  he 
be  a  professor  of  divinity  or  an  active  pastor,  has  been  through 
a  struggle.  He  is  conscious  of  the  effort  involved  in  departing 
from  older  views;  and  he  feels  that  he  has  passed  through  an 
important  change.  The  laity,  however,  can  judge  the  higher 
critic  only  by  what  he  says.  It  is  impossible  to  preach  the 
critical,  scientific  method  in  the  pulpit,  because  the  church  is 
not  a  university.  When  standing  before  a  church  audience,  a 
man  of  the  "new  school"  may  give  only  the  results  of  critical 
study  as  applied  to  theology  and  religion. 

We  have  guarded  against  misapprehension  by  pointing  out 
the  scientific  meaning  and  value  of  modern  critical  scholarship. 


MODERN  SCIENTIFIC  BIBLE-STUDY  291 

From  the  standpoint  of  practical,  or  non-academic  problems, 
however,  the  higher  critics  thus  far  occupy  virtually  the  same 
ground  as  their  conservative,  orthodox  predecessors  and  col- 
leagues. For  while  the  new  school  replaces  the  legal  by  the 
moral  view  of  religion,  it  stands  alongside  the  old  school  hi 
treating  redemption  as  an  individual  or  personal  matter.  The 
new  school  has  recovered  the  moral  standpoint  of  Jesus  and 
the  prophets;  but  thus  far,  on  the  whole,  it  moves  within  the 
terms  of  individualism  as  a  gospel  sufficient  for  the  salvation 
of  the  world.  The  new  and  the  old  schools  have  been  parted  by 
their  intellectual  perceptions,  but  not  by  any  difference  of 
practical  emphasis.  The  old  school,  in  spite  of  its  legalism 
and  supernaturalism,  always  viewed  the  moral  regeneration  of 
the  individual  as  an  incident  of  the  redemptive  process;  and 
up  to  the  present  time,  the  new  school  with  a  few  exceptions, 
has  merely  banished  legalism  from  theology,  and  put  moral 
regeneration  to  the  front  as  the  essential  feature  of  redemption. 
The  struggle  to  establish  the  critical  method  has  prevented 
the  new  school  from  realizing  the  incompleteness  of  its  work. 
The  scientific  discovery  of  the  moral  character  of  the  Bible 
and  its  religion  does  not  have  the  finality  that  most  critics 
have  assumed.  Although  it  throws  light  upon  older  problems 
regarding  the  nature  and  composition  of  the  Bible,  it  brings 
to  view  another  problem  in  which  the  Bible  is  linked  up  with 
the  moving  forces  of  all  history.  The  conclusions  to  which  we 
are  now  advancing  will  be  indicated  in  the  final  chapter.  But 
before  turning  to  these  conclusions,  the  general  argument 
relates  itself  to  another  fact  of  large  and  epoch-making  impor- 
tance in  social  history.  While  this  fact  is  a  commonplace,  its 
connection  with  the  problem  before  us  is  not  often  discussed. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 
SEPARATION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE 

Modern  society  dissolves  the  ancient  bonds  between  politics 
and  religion. — Another  sociological  fact  of  large  importance  now 
claims  our  attention.  We  have  seen  that  among  all  primitive 
and  heathen  peoples,  religion  and  politics  are  intimately 
connected.  Religion  is  a  positive,  legal  bond,  holding  social 
groups  together.  Whoever  does  not  worship  the  gods  and 
practice  the  ceremonies  of  a  given  group  is  an  alien  to  that 
group.  It  was  under  the  dominance  of  this  view  of  life,  which 
we  have  called  "the  church-and-state  regime,"  that  all  ancient 
civilization  existed.  When  we  pause  to  recall  the  immemorial 
connection  between  religious  and  political  matters,  the  modern 
divorce  of  Church  and  State  appears  not  only  sudden,  but 
almost  miraculous.  While  the  religion  of  the  Bible  came  into 
being  under  the  church-and-state  system,  and  was  entangled 
with  that  system  for  thousands  of  years,  it  now  exists  in  the 
more  progressive  part  of  modern  civilization  without  the 
support  of  external  authority;  and  the  principle  of  the  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State  tends  constantly  to  spread. 

There  are  many  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  this  great 
social  revolution;  but  we  shall  not  inquire  into  them.  The 
fact  itself  is  before  us.  The  "disestablishment"  of  religion  is 
complete,  for  instance,  in  the  United  States,  where  the  national 
constitution  forbids  Congress  to  make  any  law  respecting  the 
establishment  of  religion.  Although  England  has  an  "estab- 
lished" church,  the  legal  recognition  of  "nonconformity,"  and 
the  right  of  "dissenters"  to  vote,  to  sit  in  Parliament,  and  to 
be  ministers  of  the  Crown,  completely  neutralize  the  original 
principle  of  state-religion.  The  same  result  has  been  attained 
in  other  Christian  countries,  such  as  Germany  and  France, 

292 


SEPARATION  OF  CHURCH  AND   STATE  293 

by  the  passage  of  laws  appropriate  to  the  various  localities. 
The  general  fact,  then,  comes  before  us  that  in  modern  society 
religion  either  is,  or  tends  to  be,  no  longer  a  direct  political 
and  economic  issue.  The  separation  of  Church  and  State  is 
now  a  commonplace;  and  there  is  difficulty  in  picturing  the 
former  condition  of  things  to  a  modern  audience.  The  modern 
layman  reads  the  Bible  with  the  impression  that  David,  and 
Isaiah,  and  Jesus,  and  Paul  acted  and  spoke  and  thought  in 
an  atmosphere  of  religious  toleration,  when,  as  a  matter  of 
history,  the  Bible  can  be  interpreted  only  in  view  of  the 
church-and-state  system.  Bearing  sharply  in  mind  the  separa- 
tion of  religious  and  political  issues,  we  turn  to  the  modern 
social  awakening  as  the  final  topic  in  our  study. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII 
THE  MODERN  SOCIAL  AWAKENING 

The  present  age  is  marked  by  a  new  interest  in  the  social 
problem. — The  influences  that  we  have  been  tracing  in  our 
study  of  modern  religious  history  have  now  converged  in  the 
production  of  a  crisis  through  which  society  is  passing  into  a 
new  epoch.  The  forces  leading  to  the  present  crisis  are  indi- 
cated by  the  rise  of  scientific  Bible-study,  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State,  and  the  great  social  awakening.  The 
development  of  society  is  very  complex;  and  the  present  age, 
like  all  others,  is  moved  by  the  pressure  of  many  forces.  But 
an  epoch  always  gets  a  distinctive  character  from  the  problems 
that  crowd  themselves  into  the  center  of  its  attention.  In  this 
way,  the  twentieth  century  is  more  and  more  becoming  the 
age  of  the  social  problem.  What  is  the  practical  bearing  of 
sociological  Bible-study  upon  the  present  crisis?  Does  this 
line  of  inquiry  give  results  of  any  value  hi  reference  to  the 
social  problems  now  coming  up  for  attention  ?  A  number  of 
answers  to  this  question  disclose  themselves. 

Sociological  study  of  the  Bible  promotes  understanding  of  the 
social  problem,  and  leads  to  a  social  habit  of  thought. — We  all 
tend  to  ignore  "society,"  and  to  discount  its  existence.  We 
accept  the  fact  of  society  like  the  air  we  breathe.  It  is  an 
important  condition  of  life;  yet  we  commonly  think  as  little 
about  it  as  we  do  about  the  atmosphere.  We  think  in  terms 
of  the  individual  persons  with  whom  we  come  in  contact. 
In  forming  judgments  about  the  merits  of  any  particular 
question,  such  as  a  labor  strike,  a  dynamite  outrage,  or  the 
rise  in  the  cost  of  living,  our  first  and  chief  impulse  is  to  blame 
somebody.  We  find  the  "causes"  of  problems  in  the  bad 
habits  of  certain  people;  and  we  undertake  to  solve  problems 

294 


THE  MODERN  SOCIAL  AWAKENING  295 

merely  by  reforming  individuals.  This  tendency  is  called 
"individualism;"  and  it  has  so  much  truth  in  it  that  it  will 
always  be  a  factor  in  human  thought.  Nevertheless,  when 
individualism  is  uncorrected  by  a  wider  vision  of  human 
problems,  it  leads  to  conclusions  and  results  of  limited  value. 

The  world  is  now  learning,  through  much  labor  and  sorrow, 
that  human  problems  are  caused,  not  only  by  the  bad  will  of 
individuals,  but  by  defective  social  arrangements.  Funda- 
mentally, this  is  the  meaning  of  the  present  "social"  awaken- 
ing. The  fact  of  "society,"  as  distinct  from  "the  individual," 
is  forcing  itself  into  the  field  of  human  vision  as  never  before. 
The  "social  consciousness"  is  rapidly  growing  into  power. 
Sociological  study  of  the  Bible,  through  its  appeal  to  common- 
place interests  in  religion  and  economics,  helps  to  give  expres- 
sion to  the  new  social  spirit.  As  the  student  "observes  the 
evolution  of  political  and  social  life  in  Bible  times  and  sees 
the  consequent  evolution  of  moral  and  religious  ideals,  it 
becomes  perfectly  natural  for  him  to  employ  in  the  attempt 
to  understand  the  life  of  his  own  day  and  generation  those  very 
principles  which  have  proved  to  be  fruitful  in  the  understanding 
of  the  Bible."1  The  study  of  the  Bible,  then,  is  no  mere 
delving  into  the  dust  of  antiquity;  it  is  a  matter  of  modern 
interest.  When  we  follow  out  the  development  of  Bible 
religion,  we  are  studying  the  origin  of  ideas  that  live  in  the 
civilization  around  us.  The  religion  of  the  Christian  world 
is,  to  a  large  extent,  a  projection  of  the  life  of  ancient  Israel 
across  the  intervening  ages  into  modern  times. 

Since  individualism  ignores  the  "social  group,"  it  has  done 
little  toward  a  real  solution  of  the  world's  problems;  and  it  is 
now  going  into  partial  eclipse.  Representing  an  extreme 
tendency  of  the  human  mind,  it  is  at  length  confronted  by  the 
opposite  extreme.  A  new  philosophy  is  now  spreading 
rapidly  among  all  classes.  This  new  view  of  human  problems 

1  Biblical  World  (Chicago),  October,  1909,  p.  222.     Editorial. 


296  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

discounts  personality  as  much  as  the  ancient  individualism 
discounts  the  fact  of  society.  The  "socialist"  is  greatly  con- 
cerned with  "class-consciousness,"  the  "class-war,"  etc. 
According  to  socialism,  the  individual  bears  the  same  relation 
to  history  that  the  drop  of  water  bears  to  the  ocean  wave; 
he  is  not  a  causal  factor  in  the  world's  experience,  but  only  an 
atom  borne  along  on  the  great  cosmic  flow  of  things.  History 
is  interpreted  as  "economic  determinism."  In  brief,  the 
socialist  philosophy  is  in  all  respects  the  opposite  of  individ- 
ualism, and  has  been  well  described  as  "  Calvinism  with  God 
left  out." 

Individualism  has  been  called  the  thesis  whereof  socialism 
is  the  opposite,  or  antithesis;  while  sociology,  or  the  scientific 
interpretation  of  society,  has  been  called  the  synthesis  which 
will  in  time  correct  the  errors  of  the  two  extremes.1  Sociologi- 
cal study  of  the  Bible  will  have  a  share  in  this  needed  corrective 
work. 

Sociological  study  of  the  Bible  suggests  that  the  modern  church 
cannot  have  a  "social  program." — The  present  social  awakening 
of  the  church  has  been  criticized  for  putting  too  great  stress 
upon  the  public  aspect  of  life,  and  neglecting  the  "individual." 
This  protest  is  based  on  the  standpoint  of  individualism.  The 
chief  peril  in  the  present  awakening,  however,  does  not  lie  in 
overemphasis  upon  the  public  side  of  life,  but  in  the  tendency 
to  compromise  the  church  with  programs  of  economic  and 
political  reform.  If  the  church  should  lend  itself  to  schemes 
of  public  reform,  it  would  be  forced,  necessarily,  to  "go  into 
politics."  But  since  men  have  always  differed  about  politics, 
those  who  were  opposed  to  the  program  or  scheme  adopted  by 
majority  vote  of  their  church  could  not  support  the  ecclesi- 
astical organization;  and  this  would  convert  the  church  into 
a  political  party.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion. 

1  Small  and  Vincent,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Society  (New  York,  1894),  p.  41, 
in  substance. 


THE  MODERN  SOCIAL  AWAKENING  297 

Our  chief  guide  here  is  found  in  the  testimony  of  experience. 
History  bears  witness  in  favor  of  the  separation  of  Church  and 
State.  Any  proposal  that  seeks  to  commit  the  church  to  a 
program  of  social  reform  tends  to  bring  back  the  troublous 
times  when  Church  and  State  were  connected,  and  religious 
questions  were  political  issues.1  We  are  called  upon  to  take 
notice  that  all  former  awakenings  to  the  social  problem  have 
taken  place  under  the  "  church-and-state  regime,"  and  that 
the  present  social  awakening  is  the  first  movement  of  the  kind 
in  all  history,  since  it  occurs  in  the  absence  of  connection 
between  religious  and  political  institutions. 

The  present  relation  of  the  church  to  society  is  that  of  a  gen- 
erator of  moral  and  spiritual  energy. — The  separation  of  Church 
and  State  brings  into  view  the  real  function  of  the  church  in 
modern  society.  The  church  may  be  compared  to  an  electric 
dynamo.  The  function  of  a  dynamo  is  to  convert  "power" 
into  a  useful  form.  The  church  is  a  meeting-place  where  all 
may  find  the  impulse  to  useful  service,  but  where  no  party 
may  seek  indorsement  for  its  own  special  program  of  reform. 
It  is  true  that  the  church  of  the  past  has  been  identified  more 
closely  with  the  upper  social  classes  than  with  the  lower.  But 
this  has  been  unavoidable.  It  is  an  incident  of  the  historic 
situation,  whose  adjustment  may  be  safely  remitted  to  the 
future  (cf.  p.  239,  supra). 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  church  has  erred  in  its  manner 
of  presenting  "individual  regeneration"  as  the  one,  complete 
cure  for  the  world's  problems.  By  practically  insisting  that 
individual  salvation  is  the  final  word  in  reform,  the  church 
has  alienated  many  persons  for  whom  a  great  moral  principle 

1  This  consideration  has  no  reference  to  charitable  or  educational  work,  which  of 
course  may  be  safely  undertaken  by  the  church.  Such  work  has  been  lately  rechris- 
tened  "social  service";  but  in  most  cases,  the  "social  gospel"  turns  out  to  be  the  old 
individualism  under  a  new  name.  The  significant  thing  here  is  the  attempt  to  conform 
to  the  spirit  of  the  times  by  giving  a  new  name  to  essentially  old  ideas.  This  is  one  of 
the  characteristic  signs  of  an  age  of  transition. 


298  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

has  been  made  to  appear  like  a  mockery.  But  this  mistake  is 
not  something  peculiar  to  the  church.  It  simply  reflects  the 
average  opinion  up  to  the  present  time.  The  church  is 
composed  of  people,  and  can  move  no  faster  than  the  people 
move. 

Sociological  study  of  the  Bible  has  a  great  spiritual  meaning.— 
It  is  clear  that  this  form  of  Bible-study  has  a  great  deal  to  do 
with  what  we  call  "materialistic"  and  "worldly"  matters;  it 
suggests  many  ideas  whiqh  the  modern  reader  has  not  been 
accustomed  to  connect  with  "religion."  But  it  has  a  far 
deeper  meaning.  Only  through  a  long  struggle  with  material- 
istic social  problems  was  Israel  fitted  to  see  God.  The  pro- 
phetic thought  revolved  endlessly  around  the  criticism  of 
personal  conduct ;  and  the  repeated  failure  of  the  prophets  to 
advance  beyond  the  individualist  conception  of  the  social 
problem  threw  Israel's  thinkers  again  and  again  back  into  the 
realm  of  the  spirit,  until  at  last  they  learned  the  lesson  that  all 
must  learn:  "Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone." 


APPENDIX 

NOTE  ON  THE  HISTORY  OF  SOCIOLOGICAL  BIBLE-STUDY 

In  1880  a  book  was  published  under  the  title  Early  Hebrew  Life:  A 
Study  in  Sociology.  (London:  Triibner  &  Co.)  The  author,  John 
Fenton,  is  otherwise  unknown  to  me.  The  book  is  dedicated  to  the 
German  scholar  Heinrich  Ewald.  The  author  is  acquainted  with  the 
Hebrew  language;  he  is  familiar  with  the  writings  of  Kuenen,  Well- 
hausen,  and  other  European  biblical  critics;  and  he  has  read  the  works 
of  Spencer,  Maine,  Morgan,  and  other  sociological  writers  of  that  period. 
The  book  is  more  significant  for  what  it  is,  than  for  any  positive  results; 
and  it  is  now  almost  unknown.  The  writer  asserts  the  parallelism 
between  Hebrew  social  evolution  and  that  of  other  historic  peoples;  but 
he  does  not  come  within  sight  of  the  sociological  problem  of  the  Bible, 
for  he  does  not  perceive  the  composite  nature  of  the  Hebrew  social 
group  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  nor  the  vital  consequences  involved 
in  that  fact.  The  book  will  always  be  well  worth  reading. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  a  consecutive  and  logical  dating  to  the  rise 
of  sociological  Bible-study.  Two  books  by  Professor  W.  Robertson 
Smith,  of  Cambridge  University,  have  been  very  influential  in  this 
direction.  One  of  these,  Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia,  was 
published  in  1885;  the  other,  The  Religion  of  the  Semites,  was  delivered 
in  lecture  form  about  1889,  and  published  shortly  after.  These  books 
are  distinctly  sociological,  in  the  scientific  sense;  and  they  bring  the 
Bible  well  within  their  field.  Similar  work  was  done  by  Professor 
Wellhausen,  of  Marburg,  in  his  Reste  arabischen  Heidentumes  (Berlin, 
1887).  In  1890  it  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Joseph  Jacobs,  a  sociological 
investigator,  that  the  biblical  higher  critics  were  deficient  from  the 
standpoint  of  what  he  termed  "institutional  sociology."1  In  1892 
Professor  Crawford  H.  Toy,  of  Harvard  University,  wrote:  "Religion 
....  may  be  regarded  as  a  branch  of  sociology,  subject  to  all  the  laws 
that  control  general  human  progress."2  The  term  "biblical  sociology" 
was  first  used,  apparently,  by  Professor  Shailer  Mathews,  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago,  in  the  Biblical  World  for  January,  1895.  Professor 

1  Cheyne,  Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism  (London,  1893),  p.  330. 

2  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity  (Boston,  1892),  p.  i. 

299 


300  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Mathews  defined  sociology  in  general  as  the  attempt  to  discover  the  laws 
underlying  human  association;  and  he  has  since  been  active  in  pro- 
moting social  study  of  religion.  In  1898  Professor  Graham  Taylor,  of 
Chicago  Commons,  also  used  the  term,  referring  to  "the  demand  for  a 
distinct  department  of  research  and  scientific  formulation  dealing  with 
the  social  data  of  the  Scriptures  which  ultimately  is  sure  to  create  a 
biblical  sociology"  (American  Journal  of  Theology,  Vol.  II,  p.  891).  In 
1899  Professor  Frantz  Buhl,  of  the  University  of  Leipzig,  issued  a  study 
of  social  institutions  in  Israel  under  the  title  Die  socialen  Verhaltnisse 
der  Israeliten  (Berlin).  This  treatise  breaks  no  new  ground;  but  it  is 
an  interesting  sign  of  the  drift  of  biblical  studies.  In  1900  Professor 
Graham  Taylor  published  an  elaborate  Syllabus  in  Biblical  Sociology 
(Chicago).  This  treatise  was  intended  mainly  for  the  use  of  theological 
students,  as  an  exhibit  of  what  had  been  done  up  to  that  time.  In  1901 
Rev.  Edward  Day  contributed  to  the  "Semitic  Series"  (New  York),  a 
book  entitled  The  Social  Life  of  the  Hebrews.  In  the  same  year  (1901) 
Professor  T.  K.  Cheyne,  of  Oxford  University,  writing  in  the  Encyclopedia 
Biblica  (col.  2057),  noticed  the  entry  of  biblical  criticism  into  a  new 
phase,  which  is  due  among  other  influences  to  "comparative  study  of 
social  customs."  In  1902  Professor  George  A.  Barton,  of  Bryn  Mawr 
College,  published  a  notable  work,  entitled  A  Sketch  of  Semitic  Origins, 
Social  and  Religious  (New  York).  This  treatise  cultivates  the  field 
marked  out  by  Wellhausen  and  W.  Robertson  Smith.  It  is  written  in 
view  of  the  results  of  historical  criticism  and  many  of  the  results  of 
modern  sociology;  and  while  it  devotes  considerable  attention  to  biblical 
religion,  its  chief  interest  is  in  the  general  Semitic  field.  Professor  Ira 
M.  Price,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  is  preparing  an  exhaustive  work 
on  the  social  customs  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  in  the  light  of  modern 
research  into  Semitic  civilization. 

In  the  American  Journal  of  Sociology  for  May,  1902,  the  present 
writer  has  a  paper  which  treats  the  connection  of  social  development 
with  Semitic  religion  and  the  Christian  church.  This  paper  is  an 
advance  study  of  a  book  issued  in  1903,  entitled  An  Examination  of 
Society  (Columbus,  Ohio).  A  large  part  of  that  book  is  devoted  to 
sociological  study  of  material  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments;  and 
it  foreshadows  results  later  developed  in  more  definite  form.  In  1905 
the  same  writer  published  a  book  entitled  Egoism:  A  Study  in  the  Social 
Premises  of  Religion  (Chicago),  in  which  the  sociological  problem  of  the 
Bible  was  recognized  more  clearly.  In  1907  the  same  writer  contributed 
to  the  periodical  mentioned  above,  two  papers  entitled,  "Sociological 


APPENDIX  301 

Significance  of  the  Bible,"  and  "Sociology  and  Theism."  In  the  follow- 
ing year  he  contributed  to  the  American  Journal  of  Theology  (Chicago, 
April,  1908)  a  paper  entitled,  "Professor  Orr  and  Higher  Criticism," 
suggesting  the  sociological  deficiency  of  the  older  interpretation  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  promise  of  development  in  the  newer  school  of  criticism. 
In  the  same  year  (1908)  he  began  a  systematic  series,  in  the  sociological 
journal  mentioned  above,  entitled  "Biblical  Sociology."  The  first  of 
these  papers  appeared  in  the  September  issue  for  that  year;  and  the 
seventh  and  concluding  instalment  was  published  in  the  issue  for 
November,  1911. 

In  the  meanwhile  courses  having  a  sociological  bearing  on  the  Old 
Testament  were  given  at  various  institutions,  as  follows:  Minnesota 
State  University,  by  Professor  Samuel  G.  Smith;  Chicago  Theological 
Seminary,  by  Professor  Graham  Taylor;  Harvard  University  Divinity 
Summer  School,  by  Professor  Lewis  B.  Paton;  Pacific  Theological 
Seminary,  by  Professor  William  F.  Bade;  Newton  Theological  Institu- 
tion, by  Professor  Winfred  N.  Donovan;  Ohio  State  University,  by  Mr. 
Louis  Wallis. 

In  1910  Professor  Samuel  G.  Smith,  of  Minnesota  State  University, 
published  a  book  entitled,  Religion  in  the  Making:  A  Study  in  Biblical 
Sociology  (New  York).  This  book  is  a  useful  advertisement  of  the 
connection  between  sociology  and  the  Bible;  but  it  contains  no  statement 
of  the  implied  problem,  and  advances  no  working  hypothesis  which 
throws  light  on  the  origin  of  distinctive  Hebrew  institutions.1 

The  book  to  which  the  present  historical  note  is  an  appendix  is  a 
revision  of  the  papers  published  in  the  American  Journal  of  Sociology  by 
the  present  writer. 

BOOKS  ON  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

A  printed  list  has  been  prepared  for  the  use  of  those  who  desire  to 
know  the  titles  of  reliable  books  on  the  Bible  from  the  modern  scientific 
standpoint.  This  will  be  supplied  on  receipt  of  four  cents  in  stamps. 

XA  review  of  Professor  Smith's  book  was  contributed  to  the  Biblical  World 
(Chicago),  April,  1910,  by  the  present  writer.  Professor  Smith  used  the  term  "biblical 
sociology"  in  correspondence  with  me,  before  it  appeared  at  the  head  of  my  series  in 
the  American  Journal  of  Sociology;  but  at  the  time  the  series  commenced,  I  supposed 
the  term  was  original  with  me.  Investigation  shows,  however,  as  indicated  above, 
that  this  combination  was  used  as  far  back  as  1895  at  least;  and  it  now  appears  to 
have  suggested  itself  to  a  number  of  writers  independently. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Abimelek,  109 

Abraham,  56,  94 

Adams  and  Stephens,  267,  269 

Adams,  G.  B.,  272 

Addis,  W.  E.,  136,  184 

Adeney,  W.  F.,  248 

Adoption,  44 

Amorite,  "iniquity  of,"  35-37,  94,  95, 

201,  2O2 

Amorites,  xxiv,  xxv;  sale  of  land  by,  91; 

cities  of,    105,    106;    race  distinction 

lost,  122 

Amorite  and  Canaanite,  21,  108 
Ark  of  Yahweh,  126 
Arabs,  89 
Araunah, 91,  137 
Augustine,  256 
Authorized  Version,  284 
Authority,  biblical,  conflicting,  188 

Baal,  or  family  head,  41,  48,  158 

Baals,  or  Baalim,  local  gods  identified 

with    civilization,    xxvi,    72;     of    the 

border,  174;  and  Yahweh,  98,  133 
Baal-class,  contraction  of,  161 
Baal-idea,  a  foil,  86 
Baalism,  and  mishpat,  195;  a  "fulcrum," 

197 
Baal-names,    and    Yahweh-names,    113, 

119 

Baal-zebub,  or  Beelzebub,  99 
Bacon,  B.  W.,  245 
Barton,  G.  A.,  39,  63 
Bayith,  family,  45 
Bible,  s6ance  view  of,  256,  283 
Ben  Hur,  59 

Biblical  World,  xv,  xxxii,  16,  217,  295 
Blackstone,  W.,  271 

Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh,  30,  100,  131 
Breasted,  J.  H.,  9,  70,  92,  120,  128,  175 
Briggs,  C.  A.,  37 
Brown,  Francis,  xvi 


Bryce,  J.,  272 

Budde,  K.,  82,  93,  118,  177 

Bury,  J.  B.,  xviii,  15 

Carpenter,  J.  E.,  215 

Catholicism,  and  "Amoritism,"  249; 
and  Bible-study,  250,  274 

Charity,  and  wages,  218 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  216 

Chemosh,  of  Moab,  74,  76 

Christianity,  personal,  236;  not  social- 
ism, 239 

Church  and  State,  connected,  63 

Church,  present  function  of,  xxxii,  3,  297 

Civilization,  despotic  tendencies,   175 

Clan,  Hebrew,  47,  154 

Clarke,  W.  N.,  10 

Cone,  O.,  241 

Cook,  S.  A.,  xvi 

Cornill,  C.,  192 

Dan,  or  Laish,  31 

David,  55,  65,  77,  130 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  80,  183,  207 

Day  of  Yahweh,  220 

Deuteronomy,  135,  170,  191,  198 

Deuteronomic  school,  and  Baalism,  198 

Dobschutz,  E.,  241 

Doughty,  C.  M.,  89,  93,  142 

Drama,  the  biblical,  99 

Edh,  altar  of,  19 

Egypt,  100,  129 

El,  elohim,  64;  sons  of,  67 

Elijah,  177 

Elisha,  55 

Ephod,  77 

Erman,  A.,  129 

Ezekiel,  201,  205 

Family,  Hebrew,  41 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  245,  282 
Foster,  F.  H.,  10 


3°S 


SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Frazer,  J.  G.,  64 

Froude,  J.  A.,  234,  278,  279 

Genesis,  and  hill-country,  106 

Ger,  the,  45 

Gibbon,  E.,  246 

Gibborim,  142,  153 

Gibeonites,  114,  120 

Gideon,  48,  77,  108 

Gilbert,  G.  H.,  xvi,  257,  281 

Gilead,  Judah,  etc.,  136 

God,  leader  in  redemption,  7 

Gods,  the,  as  members  of  society,  62; 

inhale  incense,  162 
Gael,  Yahweh  as,  208 
Goodspeed,  G.  S.,  9,  92,  120,  128,  145 
Goyim,  49 
Gray,  G.  B.,  44 

Green,  J.  R.,  122,  254,  276,  277 
Green,  W.  H.,  12 
Group,  social,  14 

Hallam,  H.,  246 

Hannibal,  too 

Harnack,  A.,  241,  256 

Hebrews,  national  development  peculiar, 

95,  176;   social  diversity  of,  135-37 
Hefele,  C.  J.,  246 
Henderson,  E.  F.,  253 
Hexateuch,  xxiv,  20,  32,  44 
Holiness  Code,  201 
Hommel,  F.,  93 
Hosea,  185 
Hyksos,  xxix,  96 

Iliad,  68,  162 

Indians,  88 

Individualism  and  socialism,  295 

Interest,  89,  90,  158 

Isaiah,  Book  of,  183 

Jastrow,  M.,  9,  128 

Jebb,  R.  C.,  120 

Jehu,  179 

Jehonadab,  or  Jonadab,  180 

Jerusalem,  107,  108,  120,  121 

Jeroboam,  142 

Jeremiah,  195 

Jesus,  n,  228  f. 


Jews,  xxv,  209 

Job,  156 

Jordan,  L.  H.,  xvii 

Josiah,  189,  190,  193 

Josephus,  223 

Judaism,  orthodox,  216,  231 

Judges,  shophetim,  98;  Book  of,  137,  199 

Kassites,  xxix,  96 
Kautsch,  E.,  105,  192 
Kenite,  hypothesis,  82 
Kent,  C.  F.,  177 
Kirkpatrick,  A.  F.,  164 
Kittel,  R.,  94,  105 
Kuenen,  A.,  xii,  12 

Laboring  class,  Hebrew,  60 

Lagrange,  L.  M.,  63 

Landownership,  53 

Land  question,  92,  154,  270 

Law  and  Prophets,  reversed,  xi,  212 

Law,  Roman,  270 

Lindsay,  T.  M.,  270,  272,  274,  277,  280 

Loisy,  A.,  192 

Lollardy,  268 

Luckenbill,  D.  D.,  175 

Luther,  Martin,  272 

Macaulay,  T.  B.,  235 

Macdonald,  D.,  68,  69,  75 

Mathews,  S.,  241 

Manasseh,  187 

Manufacturing  class,  Hebrew,  58 

Marti,  K.,  99,  117,  184,  192 

McCurdy,  J.  F.,  135,  184 

McGiffert,  A.  C.,  240,  282 

Meat,  tainted,  law  of,  46,  158 

Merchant  class,  Hebrew,  58 

Mesha,  of  Moab,  76 

Messianism,  220 

Milman,  H.  H.,  246 

Mishpat,  xxvii,  5,  90;    Samuel  on,  92; 

in  Judges  period,  112;   and  hok,  198; 

Yahweh    and,    112,    117;     stages    of 

struggle,  173,  174,  185 
Mishphachah,  Hebrew  clan,  47,  154 
Mohar,  43 
Mommsen,  T.,  68 
Monasticism,  249 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


307 


Moses,  82 
Motley,  J.  L.,  277 
Miiller,  A.,  142 
Mythology,  xx,  xxi 

Nabal,  55 

Nabi,  147 

Naboth,  144 

National  evolution,  Hebrew,  95,  96,  176 

Nebuchadrezzar,  prayer  to  Marduk,  8 

Nehemiah,  209 

New  Testament,  and  slavery,  159,  243; 

completion  of,  250 
Niebuhr,  B.  G.,  xix,  xx 
Nomadism,  and  civilization,  88 
Northern  Kingdom,  destruction  of,  187 

Old  Testament,  a  moral  work,  33 
Orr,  J.,  xvii,  12,  191,  241 

Palfrey,  J.  G.,  89 

Pantheon,  Hebrew,  138 

Paul,  242 

Peabody,  F.  G.,  241 

Peace  treaty,  Amorite,  113,  114 

Peasantry,  Assyrian,  144 

Persecution,  religious,  63 

Philemon,  244 

Philistines,  115 

Piety,  Jewish,  215 

Prediction,  not  prophetic  test,  170 

Price,  I.  M.,  133 

Priestly  documents,  202 

Property,  male  inheritance  of,  44 

Prophecy,  banished  by  the  Bible,  214 

Prophets,  "genius"  of,  xvii;  as  preach- 
ers, 147;  and  mishpat,  148,  150;  not 
democrats,  157,  160;  two  classes  of, 
164-68;  alleged  originality  of,  183; 
early  Judean,  102,  183,  200 

Protestantism,  orthodox,  279,  280 

Rainy,  R.,  241,  245,  246,  248 

Rauschenbusch,  W.,  241 

Records  of  the  English  Bible,  Pollard,  275 

Rechabites,  181 

Reformation,    and    history,    264;     and 

Yahweh-Baal    struggle,    272;     climax 

of,  276 


Religion,  Bible,  twofold,  3 
Renan,  E.,  136,  142 
Riggs,  J.  S.,  216 
Robinson,  H.  W.,  127 
Rogers,  J.  E.  T.,  266,  268 
Romulus  and  Remus,  xix 
Ruth,  75 

Samuel,  92,  141, 146 

Sanctuaries,  local,  22,  127,  190 

Sanday,  W.,  xvi 

Saul,  114 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  128 

Schaff,  P.,  280,  287 

Seance  view,  of  Bible,  215,  256,  282,  283 

Shophet,  shaphat,  etc.,  47,  98,  112 

Silver,  demonetization,  143 

Sirach,  Wisdom  of,  219 

Skinner,  J.,  174 

Slavery,  49,  51,  158 

Small,  A.  W.,  xxxiv,  264 

Small  and  Vincent,  xxxiv,  296 

Smith,  G.  A.,  xiii,  135,  189 

Smith,  H.  P.,  138,  142,  189 

Smith,  Preserved,  274,  281 

Smith,  W.  R.,  63,  64,  136,  177,  215 

Socialism,  and  individualism,  295,  296 

Sociology,  xxii,  13,  14,  227,  228 

Solomon,  121 

Southern  Kingdom,  and  mishphat,  182 

Steindorff,  G.,  129 

Taylor,  H.,  272 
Tent  of  Meeting,  17,  20 
Teraphim,  70,  71 
Theology,  10,  97 
Third  estate,  60,  61 
Treaty,  Amorite,  113 
Trevelyan,  G.  M.,  268 

Urim  and  Thummim,  77 

Villages,  Hebrew,  54 
Vincent,  G.  E.,  xxiii,  14 

Walker,  G.  L.,  6 
Weber,  A.,  257 
Wellhausen,  J.,  xi,  xvi 
White,  A.  D.,  283 


3o8 


SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Wikliffe,  John,  267 
Wildeboer,  G.,  212 
Winckler,  H.,  93 
Wratislaw,  A.  H.,  268 

Yahweh,  the  name,  xiii;  and  Baal,  xxvi; 
early  cult  of,  73;  covenant  with,  80; 
contrasted  views  about,  96;  in  Judges 
period,  116;  rain-function  of,  118; 


"increase"  of,  128;  as  "god  of  gods," 
130;  and  the  Amorite  Baals,  133; 
tendency  to  "baalize"  him,  134,  176; 
speaks  to  Jehu,  180;  as  goel,  or  Re- 
deemer, 206-8 

Yahweh-Baal  struggle,  101,  102,  104,  185 
Yahweh     religion,     conditions     of     its 
development,  86 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


A    000 


••  k  '•     - 


'''•KW'^'' 


